Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third reading read.

Bill to be read the Third time upon Thursday next at Seven o'clock.

BRISTOL CORPORATION (WEST DOCK) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Thursday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Police

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will outline steps which he has taken designed to strengthen the police force.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The recent pay award was designed to attract recruits and to reduce the premature loss of trained police. Recruiting publicity is continuing at a high level. Increased investment in equipment, transport and telecommunications is also planned.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the principal problems is that of wastage through premature retirement? Would that not be one of the most promising lines on which to try to advance?

Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, the pay award was framed with that consideration very much in mind. I am happy to say that the wastage situation was better last year, and I am hopeful that this trend will continue.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: How far below establishment are present force levels, and how does the estimated recruiting target for this year compare with the annual average for the years 1965–70?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I am not able to answer the second part of his supplementary question without notice. On the first part of his question, the establishment of the police force on 31st March this year was 109,000, against a strength of 94,000. Therefore, there is a difference of 15,000, which is large.

Probation Service

Mr. Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement on a pay increase for probation officers.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a further statement on pay increases for probation officers.

Mr. Maudling: Following the reconstitution of the staff side of the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service, a further meeting of the Committee took place on 18th June. The staff side representatives did not then accept the employers' offer, which I described in my reply to a Question on 20th May by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler), but negotiations are continuing.—[Vol. 817, c. 1496.]

Mr. Fowler: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that a strong probation service is absolutely essential if we are to reduce the almost overwhelming pressure on the prisons? Would it not be possible to offer an interim pay award accompanied by the setting up of an inquiry to look into the whole state of the probation service?

Mr. Maudling: In a sense this is negotiation of an interim award since it comes in the middle of an exceptional 21-month period. I thought that the offer


made by the employers' side was designed to be consistent with the Government's declared and retained intention to strengthen the probation service.

Mrs. Renée Short: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that as an alternative to prison sentences—which many people ought not to have—three ought to be a considerably expanded and strengthened probation service, will this system not collapse completely unless something can be done to keep probation officers within the probation service? Is he not aware that many probation officers are moving over to local government services, in which they can get very much better pay?

Mr. Maudling: There is a Question later on the Order Paper which deals with the number of people leaving the probation service, but the pay offer that was made was designed very much with that point in view.

Mr. Hooson: Is not the service so important that its remuneration should be comparable with what is being paid in local government social services? Is this not the crux of the matter, and in these circumstances should this not be treated as a special problem?

Mr. Maudling: I agree with that. We have very much in mind comparability with local government social service scales. Although the probation service is on a fixed scale, local authorities have a recommended one; many authorities pay higher than the recommended scale, and this creates a practical problem.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does the Home Secretary not realise that the offer made is not nearly competitive enough to encourage recruitment? Would he not look at this matter seriously in view of possible deterioration in the service since an increase in numbers is highly desirable?

Mr. Maudling: Although the hon. Member asserts that, I do not accept his judgment. I think that the offer made, which was not only 8½ per cent. but also included a £70 allowance, which has been ignored in public comment, was designed to meet the requirements of the service and, I believe, would have done so.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is it not likely that the new negotiating team will meet

the same fate as the old one if it agrees to an award anywhere near 8½ per cent.? Has not the point been reached when it is necessary for the Home Secretary himself to take charge of the situation and bring about a radical reappraisal in the pay scales for this most important public service?

Mr. Maudling: I would not like to comment while negotiations are continuing, though I would like to point out that the 8½ per cent. when taken with the £70 allowance amounts in total to a figure more like 13 per cent.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers are employed per 10,000 population in England and Wales; and how many are employed per 10,000 in the Rother Valley constituency.

Mr. Maudling: At 31st May, 1971, 0·58 and 0·4 main grade officers respectively.

Mr. Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that probation officers in my constituency and the surrounding area are carrying extremely heavy case loads at present? What steps is he taking to secure further appointments so that the position may be improved greatly?

Mr. Maudling: I understand that at present there are three vacancies in the team of probation officers serving the area in question. It is expected that these will have been filled by mid-September. I hope very much that that will happen.

Mr. Bob Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the cost of keeping a man in prison compared with that of keeping him out of prison by means of the probation service makes it economic lunacy to allow the situation which has developed in the probation service to continue?

Mr. Maudling: I do not agree, and the figures do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest trends in recruiting to, and resignations from, the probation service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: According to returns from probation authorities, 134 established officers joined and 70 left the service in the first five months of this year. The corresponding figures for the same period last year were 111 and 73.

Mr. Judd: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. Does he agree that, taking into account the conditions of service in this profession, the fact that there has not been a mass exodus is a tremendous tribute to the dedication of probation officers throughout the country? At a time when the Government, to their credit, emphasise the rehabilitation of offenders, is there not something rather sordid about exploiting the good will of social workers?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept the wording of the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I recognise the great devotion of all members of the service to their duties. It is right to point out that, despite what has been said, recruiting this year has been better than last year and that wastage this year has been slightly less than last year.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is still a desperate shortage of probation officers throughout the country and that his own relatively progressive ideas in this sphere are likely to be frustrated unless he takes positive action to put the situation right?

Mr. Maudling: One must not exaggerate. The total output of students for training this year will be about 350 compared with only 270 last year.

Erroll Committee

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the first meeting of the Erroll Committee took place; and when he expects to receive its recommendations.

Mr. Maudling: The Committee first met on 5th April. It is too early to say when it will report.

Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable concern about the independence and scope of the Committee in view of the fact that he has already made up his mind and announced that our licensing

laws are archaic? If the Committee decides that they are not archaic, does that not leave the right hon. Gentleman in a curious position, half-way up a gum tree looking stupid?

Mr. Maudling: I am prepared to take that risk. I think that the laws are archaic. If the Committee comes up with the view that they are perfect, I and many others will be very surprised.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Erroll Committee paying some attention to the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission that the tied house system should be abolished or considerably amended?

Mr. Maudling: I think there is a reference in the Committee's terms of reference to the views of the Monopolies Commission.

Fire Service Examination

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the concern expressed in the fire service about the nature of question number 3 in the essay paper set by the Eastern Fire Authorities Examination Board for the leading fireman examination on 24th March, 1971; and what steps are open to the Government to ensure that such questions are not set in other fire service examinations by areas or the Central Examinations Board.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharpies): Arrangements for conducting the leading fireman's examination are for fire authorities or for local examination boards appointed for the purpose by groups of fire authorities. The Fire Services Central Examinations Board has, however, at the Home Office's request, drawn the attention of the Eastern Fire Authorities Examinations Board to the concern expressed about questions of the kind referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Sillars: Are we to take it that the information sent out by the Home Office expresses the Department's concern that such a question should be set for a promotion examination in the first place? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the concern expressed by the fire service is genuine and not manufactured?

Mr. Sharples: Yes, I do. I think the question was not very tactful.

Stray Dogs

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the operation of the law regarding stray dogs; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Sharples: The police do what they can to enforce the law on stray dogs but they have many other and more pressing duties.

Mr. Janner: While I accept, to some extent, the hon. Gentleman's answer, is it not true, nevertheless, that there are about 100,000 stray dogs loose in the country at any one time? To many people, this is a serious problem, especially at holiday times when dogs are dumped on our roads. Many people do not regard this as a laughing matter. They feel that the law should be enforced and that the person who dumps a dog should never again be granted another dog licence.

Mr. Sharples: I accept that this is a serious matter, and the hon. Gentleman was quite right to point out on the wireless this morning that Section 1 of the Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, makes it an offence for an owner to abandon an animal, whether permanently or not, in circumstances likely to cause suffering.

Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Abandonment of Animals Act may apply to the unfortunate stray dog named "Sandy" which appears to have been left at Chequers by the previous occupant?

Legal Aid

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accused persons in each of the last three years pleaded not guilty, respectively, in magistrates' courts and on indictment; how many, respectively, were convicted; and in respect of each figure, in how many instances the accused was legally aided.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): In 1970 12,721 persons who appeared for trial on indictment in England and Wales pleaded not guilty; 6,397 of these were convicted. The figures for 1968

were 10,251 and 5,487, and for 1969 10,837 and 5,405.
I regret that the other information is not available.

Mr. Archer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the piece of information that he has not given was the whole point of my Question? If we are to be reminded consistently that the cost of legal aid rises year by year, will not our consideration of its cost effectiveness be more informed if we have the information?

Mr. Carlisle: I said that the information which I suspected the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted was not available in the form that he required. In the higher courts, only 2·3 per cent. of all defendants are not represented. The number represented on legal aid in magistrates' courts has gone up substantially.

Vandalism

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will convene a conference of chief constables to consider improved methods of controlling vandalism.

Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend is in regular touch with chief constables about matters of this kind and does not feel justified in convening a special conference.

Mr. Boyden: Do the figures show that some areas are very much better in controlling vandalism than others? Would it not be a good idea for bad areas to get advice from the better ones?

Mr. Sharples: Yes, and there is a constant exchange of views between chief constables on matters of this kind. They are well aware of the problem.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is grave disquiet in local authorities about the amount of vandalism going on where the police are unable to help, quite apart from that on British Railways, which have their own police? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to look again at this serious matter?

Mr. Sharples: I do not underestimate the problem, but the Criminal Damage Bill which is at present before Parliament provides a maximum penalty of 10 years'


imprisonment for anyone convicted on indictment of intentionally damaging or destroying another person's property.

Mr. Freeson: Will the hon. Gentleman consider, in consultation with his right hon. and hon. Friends, the possibility of establishing a high-level committee of inquiry or Royal Commission to examine the root causes of violence and vandalism in modern society?

Mr. Sharples: Yes, certainly. But the hon. Gentleman knows that the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University is undertaking a study into this matter at present.

Mr. Gurden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the delay in carrying out a compulsory purchase order leaves property vacant and subject to extra vandalism?

Mr. Sharples: Yes, I am. This is a serious problem for the police.

Electric Blankets (Safety Regulations)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the proposed safety regulations about electric blankets will be in operation.

Mr. Sharples: By the autumn.

Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department is to be congratulated on advancing the date for bringing in this Order? Is he aware that he is also to be congratulated, contrary to what I was about to do, on resisting the pressure of the trade to postpone the date?

Mr. Sharples: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says. There is no intention of postponing this. The necessary consultations have to be carried out, of course.

Serious Crime (Penalties)

Mr. Jopling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take with regard to the call for tougher action against seasoned professional criminals, made by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in his report for 1970.

Mr. Maudling: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a Question

by the hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 17th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 126–7.]

Mr. Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of organised crime increasing? If he is satisfied with the Commissioner's report that prison holds few terrors for this hard core of criminals, I hope he will not hesitate to make life in prison a good deal more uncomfortable for them.

Mr. Maudling: I am not sure that I share that view. I am concerned not so much with the total growth of crime, which is slackening off, as with the growth of violent crime, which is advancing rapidly. The courts have available considerable powers of punishment, and it would be wrong for a Home Secretary to try to lay down guide lines as to how they should operate.
As for conditions in prison, I believe that the deprivation of freedom is the real punishment and that, on the whole, conditions in prison should be primarily decent in order to encourage people to rehabilitate themselves.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his original reply, to which he referred, was unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that at the moment it is often quite profitable not only to commit a crime but, even when one gets caught, to find that there is no punishment or penalty to be paid for it? I see a look of consternation on the right hon. Gentleman's face.

Mr. Maudling: I expressed consternation that I have not been able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman by my answer. Broadly speaking, penalties available to the courts for punishment of serious crime are substantial. If there are any individual suggestions which the hon. Gentleman wishes to make, I should be glad to hear them.

Tote

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase the efficiency and profitability of the Tote.

Mr. Maudling: I am aware of the problems confronting the Totalisator Board and I am in touch with the Chairman about them, but I am not yet in a position to say more.

Mr. Ashton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in a good profitable year the Tote has been expected to plough its profits back into racing and that in a bad year it has been expected to stand the losses? Would it not be a good thing if he could arrange for some money to be given to the Tote for a computer so that it could increase its efficiency in off-course cash betting and compete on equal terms with the large bookmakers?

Mr. Maudling: I am concerned about the difficulties facing the Tote Board. It is true that in the past when it has been doing better it has carried a pretty heavy proportion of the levy. I am studying this matter and I should be grateful for any helpful suggestions.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my right hon. Friend sure that the Tote Board has enough power to show the same initiative as it did with the jackpot and as it has recently shown in reducing the lower limit for credit betting?

Mr. Maudling: Yes. I was glad to see the recent moves which it made in consultation with us. I am studying all other possibilities which can be brought to my attention to enable it to strengthen its business.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the Home Secretary tell the House for how many years the Tote has not paid the annual levy to the Horserace Betting Levy Board and what is the total sum involved?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot give the exact figure. In the past the Tote has been required to make a contribution of 25 per cent. of the total cost against the share of betting turnover of 5 per cent. It is only in the last year or two that it has not been in a position to make a contribution. It may be rather more than I said. I cannot give the exact figure.

Immigration Bill

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he proposes to have with community relations organisations in connection with the Immigration Bill, and, in particular, concerning the registration provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend proposes to consult the Community Rela-

tions Commission before making regulations about police registration.

Mr. Davis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that change of attitude, because he refused to give an undertaking to that effect during the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill. Does he not think it would be appropriate to convene a series of meetings of community relations councils on a regional basis to attempt a dialogue between the Minister and those most directly affected with the day-to-day work of creating harmony between people of different races?

Mr. Sharples: As I said when the House was discussing the Immigration Bill, the correct channel of communication between the Home Secretary and the community relations councils is through the Community Relations Commission. The councils themselves know that any view which they express, directly or through the Commission, will be carefully considered.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While welcoming such consultations, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is quite improper for community relations organisations in receipt of public funds to create political agitation, with the assistance of groups on one side of politics, against the Immigration Bill?

Mr. Sharples: I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend has a later Question down about this matter.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, indeed I have.

Mr. Molloy: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis)? As local authorities, education authorities and library associations have conferences, and as community relations people are now part and parcel of our ordinary local authority set-up, will the hon. Gentleman encourage them to have an annual conference not merely on this issue but to make it an established fact and put them on the same basis as the other organisations which I have mentioned?

Mr. Sharples: How they conduct their business is a matter for them. The Question relates to representations to my right hon. Friend. As I said, the


correct channel for such representations is through the Community Relations Commission.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Will the Minister make it clear that these community relations bodies are entitled to express a view about what they conceive to be the likely working of the Immigration Bill?

Mr. Sharples: Having been disinclined to be drawn into giving an answer to a later question in reply to my hon. Friend, it would be discourteous to do so now in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Firearms Act, 1968

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement relating to the review of the Firearms Act, 1968.

Mr. Sharples: The review is making good progress, but I cannot yet estimate when it will be completed.

Mr. Molloy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. When the review is complete will he make a statement to the House? Will he also consider points which have previously been made in the House by many hon. Members on both sides who are perturbed about the mild sentences which have been dished out to hardened thugs who carry firearms? Is it not time we made it illegal and imposed heavy penalties for carrying a gun in any circumstances?

Mr. Sharples: That suggestion would involve certain difficulties. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the outcome of the review will be communicated to Parliament.

Captive Whales (Custody and Feeding)

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek powers to enable him to make regulations regarding the custody and feeding of captive whales.

Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has no information to suggest that legislation for this purpose is needed.

Dr. Gilbert: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been drawn to the

recent unruly conduct of a certain male whale in my constituency which resulted in a grown man being dragged unconscious to the bottom of a pool in Dudley Zoo and having to spend three days in hospital? Does he realise that with the spread of dolphinariums and such things throughout the country it is essential for the protection of small children that there is adequate supervision of the animals and that the possibility of danger to the public is limited?

Mr. Carlisle: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but legislation would not have any effect in this sphere.

Prison Industries

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new work industries are proposed for Her Majesty's prisons.

Mr. Carlisle: In general, prison industries will continue to rely on developing the woodworking, engineering, clothing and textiles, weaving, laundry and metal recovery industries. The scope for expansion in electro-mechanical and plastics work is being explored.

Mr. Cox: I welcome that reply. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the top priorities within the prison service should be the introduction of constructive new work industries, especially for long-term prisoners? I suggest that it is time we did away with mail-bag sewing and brush-making which still abound in so many prisons and are of no benefit as such to either prisoners or society.

Mr. Carlisle: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are anxious to secure an extension of work within prisons. This has to be viewed in conjunction with the present problem of overcrowding, but within those terms we are doing the best we can to expand the prison industries.

Fines

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money is owing in unpaid overdue fines to magistrates' courts in England and Wales at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Carlisle: I regret that this information is not available.
The total amount of fines outstanding on 31st March, 1971, in England and Wales, outside Inner London, was £6,381,604. But this included fines for which the time for payment had not expired.

Mr. Wiggin: My hon. and learned Friend will note that my Question asks about overdue fines. Will he say why such a large sum is involved and, indeed, why any fines are unpaid?

Mr. Carlisle: As I said at the beginning, and I apologise to my hon. Friend for this, it is impossible to find the answer to his Question because the figures that we keep do not distinguish between fines that are overdue and those for which time for payment has been given. My hon. Friend asked why anything is ever overdue. The answer is that people do not carry out the commitments which they are required to by the courts.

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to make available to magistrates a summary of Section 31 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, dealing with the relationship of fines to the means of the person on whom the fine is imposed.

Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that courts need to be reminded of these provisions, to which they have ready access.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the courts have no need to be reminded of this. May I point out to him that a recent Home Department circular has been sent to courts in respect of the absence of any uniformity of fines in motoring offences? If a circular of that kind can be sent to the courts, why is it not necessary to send circulars to magistrates to draw their attention to the Section of the Act to which I have referred?

Mr. Carlisle: The uniformity of fines is a different matter. The Home Office has no reason to believe that the requirement of the court, when fixing a fine, to take into consideration, among other things, the means of the person being fined is being disregarded.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that

many courts are still imposing fines that are ludicrous in relation to the person's means? When fines of £60 to £70 are imposed on an unemployed labourer with many children or on a person who has been deprived of his livelihood because he has lost his licence, one wonders how the fines will be paid.

Mr. Carlisle: It would be improper for me or for any Minister at the Home Office to comment on fines imposed by courts in individual cases. That must be a matter for the discretion of the court.

Mr. Loughlin: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

James Hanratty (Inquiry)

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has now reached regarding an inquiry into the A6 murder.

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a further statement on the case of the late James Hanratty.

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a further statement on the holding of a judicial inquiry into the conviction of James Hanratty.

Mr. Maudling: I have read the recently published book by Mr. Paul Foot and I have studied a full and detailed analysis of all the information now available in my Department about this case. It is not my function to retry a case on the basis of evidence and arguments previously considered by the courts, but only to consider whether there is any information that was not before the courts which might justify me in recommending the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy. Before coming to a decision on whether any further action is required on my part I have thought it right to ask Mr. Foot whether there are any significant new factors to which he would especially wish to call my attention. I shall make a further statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Miss Lestor: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I think I speak for all in the House who have


shown a keen interest in the case when I say that I welcome the close attention which the right hon. Gentleman is giving to what many people consider to be new evidence. Without suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should in any way skip over any vital matters, may I ask him to bear in mind the great interest and concern, particularly to the Hanratty family, in his making his announcement as soon as possible?

Mr. Maudling: This is an immensely complicated matter. The volume of documentation is tremendous, and I am determined to carry out my responsibility of making up my mind on whether there are new factors which should be taken into account.

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but may I ask whether he will arrange to meet Mr. Foot very soon? There has been considerable delay since this matter was first raised in the House. In the light of Mr. Foot's book, and in the event of the right hon. Gentlemen having a discussion with him, will he be prepared to discuss the matter with hon. Members who have shown a special interest in the case?

Mr. Maudling: I shall be glad to discuss the matter with hon. Members who have shown an interest in the case, and I am looking forward to hearing from Mr. Foot on this matter, but in defence of the Home Office and of myself I must tell the House that the documents run into millions of words, and one cannot sort this thing out in a short time.

Mr. Whitehead: I welcome the close attention which the right hon. Gentleman has given to this matter throughout. Would he accept that an inquiry into whether there should be an inquiry cannot equal in length or depth, and certainly not in fairness, the public inquiry itself into the guilt or innocence of James Hanratty? May we expect the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman's decision before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Maudling: I shall not make an announcement until I have satisfied myself that I have been into every particular. I shall make the announcement as soon as possible, but I cannot say when that will be.

Sir E. Bullus: I thank my hon. Friend for his decision. May I ask him to confirm that his decision is no reflection on the concern and anguish experienced by previous Home Secretaries when asked to review this case?

Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think I am following the precedent of my predecessors, who were always willing at any time to consider anything new that might bring new factors into the situation.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the Minister confirm that the study will not be confined to what appears in or is referred to in the book itself? In particular, will he check up on a document—namely, the first statement by Miss Valerie Storey—which was not available to Mr. Paul Foot, and, as I understand it, was not produced either at the committal proceedings or at the hearing itself?

Mr. Maudling: That is one of the features of the case, certainly.

Guard Dogs

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to make a statement on his investigations into matters concerning the use of guard dogs.

Mr. Maudling: I have now received reports from chief officers of police. In 1970 rather more than 200 attacks by guard dogs were reported to the police in England and Wales. This includes attacks by dogs with handlers and attacks on employees or trespassers in the guarded premises. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are not satisfied on the evidence so far available that it would be desirable or feasible to prohibit the use of unattended guard dogs, which are widely owned or employed to protect property and to deter theft and vandalism; but a more detailed analysis is being made of the incidents known to the police, and we shall consider, in consultation with chief officers of police, whether there is any other effective action that could be taken to reduce the number of incidents.

Mr. Lewis: May I express the appreciation of the House, and of people outside, for that report. No one has suggested that people should stop using guard dogs.


What hon. Members and the public outside have said is that there should be stricter control of the people in charge of them. We pay tribute to the way in which the police look after their guard dogs, but there are some organisations and persons who should not be in charge of any dog, let alone a guard dog. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider some system of special licence so that these people—[Interruption.] Hon. Members know that no one stops me from barking. This is a serious matter, because some organisations use savagery and thuggery against the dogs in their so-called training of them. These people ought to be licensed. Ought there not to be some stricter control over some of these organisations?

Mr. Maudling: If people use savagery and thuggery, they are committing an offence, and if it is known to the police they will be prosecuted. On the general question of licensing dogs, the reaction to the hon. Gentleman's question shows that it is not an easy one to answer.

Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there never was a need for an inquiry into the use of guard dogs, which only do the job they have been trained to do, but, rather, the inquiry should be directed to those parents who allow their children to run wild on the streets without supervision and, in consequence, endanger them?

Mr. Maudling: That is a very much wider point. I think that there is concern about this. There have been incidents of a tragic character and it must be my concern, wherever possible, to prevent tragedies from happening.

Parole System

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been released on parole conditions from Her Majesty's prisons during each of the past three years; and how many have had to be recommitted to prison because such parole conditions have been broken.

Mr. Carlisle: During the 12 months beginning 1st April, 1968, release on parole was approved for 1,559 prisoners serving determinate sentences in England and Wales and 43 persons on parole were recalled. The figures for the 12 months

beginning 1st April, 1969, were 1,840 and 94, and for the 12 months after that 2,610 and 166.

Mr. Wainwright: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Will he assure us that every case will be judged on its own merits and that if there are any special rules for allowing people out on parole, he will review these rules from time to time? Will he bear in mind that the impact of the first 14 days in prison is a greater cure for first offenders than letting them stay in longer and therefore getting used to the prison sentence?

Mr. Carlisle: There are no rules other than that no one may be released on parole before he has served a third of his sentence or 12 months, and that the Home Secretary can release no one on parole unless recommended to do so by the parole board. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, within those terms, the parole board looks at every case which is referred to it on its merits.

Mr. Fowler: Would my hon. and learned Friend not agree that those figures show the outstanding success of the parole system, that there is, therefore, no justification for believing that professional criminals are being released on parole, and that any who pin their hopes on that are likely to be disappointed?

Mr. Carlisle: I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. I believe that the scheme has been very successful. The fact that the recall rate is about 5 per cent. bears that out. On the second part of the question, I can confirm what my hon. Friend said. I would remind the House that of the 2,201 cases in which parole was granted in 1970, only 43 involved an offence of robbery with a sentence of six years or more.

Mr. Tinn: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman give us a little more information about the reasons for recall in the small number of cases in which it was applied? Was it normally because other offences had been committed or for more technical reasons?

Mr. Carlisle: I can assist the hon. Member only to this extent, that of those who have been recalled, only about half had actually committed further offences. The other half would be in breach of other terms of their parole licence.

Shops (Thefts)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now take steps to distinguish, in the crime statistics for the purpose of identification, between thefts from supermarkets and thefts from non-self-service shops.

Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend is not at present satisfied that the extra staff and expenditure which would be needed to record additional information of this kind would be justified.

Mr. Adley: But is my hon. and learned Friend aware that supermarket shopping has brought about a fundamental social change in the last few years, which has brought problems to a number of people? Is he further aware that some supermarkets are now employing security firms which seem more intent on cure than on prevention? Would he seriously have a long hard look at this, because a small but significant number of people are finding themselves in very great difficulties?

Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware of my hon. Friend's concern and interest in this matter, but I do not think this would justify keeping statistics in the way he asks.

Mr. Proudfoot: Does my hon. and learned Friend admit that there is no technical difference between the amount of shrinkage in both types of store mentioned in the question?

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot answer that without further notice.

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

Immigration

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increased entry of East African Asians, and the shortage of jobs and accommodation, he will take steps to announce a date for the general suspension of immigrants for settlement.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As an opponent of capital punishment, may I point out with apologies that the word "immigrants" in the Question should be "immigration".
Is my right hon. Friend not aware that it would be of the greatest psychological value to community relations if he could make a statement of the kind indicated in the Question?

Mr. Maudling: I made a carefully thought out statement about this problem which involved a simultaneous increase in the permits to United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa and at the same time a substantial reduction in the quota available to unskilled people from the right balance, and public opinion has largely accepted that it has succeeded.

Mr. Bidwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a special obligation on this country in regard to stateless people, and that among them are people of very high educational level? Would he see to it that no impediment is placed in their way in finding their way to middle-class areas like Chigwell?

Mr. Maudling: I do not quite see that the question of stateless persons comes into this question.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) is a red herring? I am not disputing my right hon. Friend's decision on East African Asians; I am asking him to say that the time has now come to receive no more immigrants for permanent settlement.

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that is right. A total ban on immigration for permanent settlement is wrong. We have announced what we are doing about the reduction of certain forms of immigration. But my hon. Friend must recognise that his Question placed this proposal of a general suspension firmly in the context of East African Asians.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for liaison with Commonwealth countries in relation to the United Kingdom's negotiations to join the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has overall responsibility for our relations with Commonwealth countries. In addition, throughout the negotiations my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has kept in close touch with all Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. Molloy: Is the Prime Minister aware that when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy emerged from the tough talks and was described as tired and bleary-eyed but also as saying that he had broken the back of the negotiations, many people felt that he might have broken the back of the British Commonwealth of Nations? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish !"] I know that this is not of much interest to the Conservative Party. In view of the seriousness of this situation, would the right hon. Gentleman confer with the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy to see whether, even at this stage, it is worth while calling a special conference of the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the hon. Member's thesis. As I told the House before, if this country becomes a member of an enlarged Community by far the greater number of the Commonwealth countries will themselves have direct arrangements with that enlarged Community for their trade. As to the last part of the hon. Member's question, this matter was discussed at the last Commonwealth Conference in Singapore and I myself gave a full account of the negotiations. There was also a long discussion in which most Prime Ministers and Heads of Government took part. It is better that these things should be discussed with individual countries thereafter, because the problems of individual Commonwealth countries are so different.

Mr. Blaker: Has the Foreign Secretary discussed with the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and Canada the reason why, since the Community was founded, the exports of those countries to the Community have increased many times faster than their exports to this country?

The Prime Minister: Those facts are true. It has been characteristic of the members of the Commonwealth ever since 1947, with the development of the G.A.T.T., greatly to diversify their patterns of trade. This has obviously affected the proportions of their trade with this country as well as with other members of the Commonwealth, and has increased their proportion of trade with the E.E.C.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (BROADCAST)

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a British Broadcasting Corporation programme on Wednesday, 9th June, on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if the public statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on 9th June, 1971, on the question food prices represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9th June on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on food prices represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Jay: asked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9th June on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme concerning price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Prime Minister if the public statement on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on Wednesday, 9th June, by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and


Food on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Wood on a British Broadcasting Corporation programme on Wednesday, 9th June, on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether the public statement of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on British Broadcasting Corporation radio on 9th June, 1971, on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if the broadcast statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on Wednesday, 9th June, on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; although the interpretations put on it by hon. Gentlemen opposite do not.

Mr. Atkinson: By that answer, is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that the promises which were made at the last General Election should not now be taken seriously? In view of the fact that, since the election, prices have increased by 10 per cent. and, according to today's figures, unemployment has increased by 34 per cent., would he not agree that that was a pretty callous promise to make if the Government had no intention of doing anything about it? Second, does he agree with his right hon. Friend when he said that until wages are controlled there will be no reduction in food prices?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did not say that promises should not be kept—exactly the reverse—[Interruption.]—and it is because this Government have kept so many of their promises that hon. Gentlemen opposite are so bitterly opposed to us.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the Prime Minister aware that on the day he made that speech, 16th June, 1970, we were told
Heath puts his shirt on the housewives
but that the very housewives on whom he put his shirt have seen through his mendacity—[Interruption.]—on that occasion, as is evidenced by the local elections—

[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and all the by-elections that have taken place? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that he will never be taken seriously again? Incidentally, would he be kind enough—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is enough. At least eight hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye to put supplementary questions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to curtail his supplementary question.

Mr. Davis: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain how "at a stroke" he—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—reduced the rise in unemployment?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) wish to put a point of order to me?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Could it wait till the end of Question time?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, if that would be more convenient, Mr. Speaker.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Davis: Order. May I have an answer to my supplementary question?

The Prime Minister: I could not hear a thing the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. John Fraser: Wash the sea water out of your ears.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us, like Mrs. Dale, are getting a little worried about Jim, and we all remember what happened to him? [Laughter.] Is he further aware that the sacking of incompetent Ministers is no substitute for a General Election, at which the British people can have a chance to be serious?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has a Jim. He has every right to be worried about him. [Laughter.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Davis: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order that can be left till the end of Question Time?

Mr. Davis: Not really, Mr. Speaker. I gather that the Prime Minister did not hear my supplementary question. May I take the liberty of repeating it?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think not.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is it not clear, bearing in mind the price rises that were in the pipeline, that the then Prime Minister ended his responsibility "at a stroke" and had the General Election in June, 1970, when he could have gone on governing for another year? Will my right hon. Friend please say how much of the short-term debt of £1,500 million has been paid off by the Conservative Government?

The Prime Minister: Those figures are, of course, published in the Bank of England Review. What my hon. Friend said in the first part of his supplementary question is quite correct. The former Prime Minister could have gone on for another year, but he suddenly terminated his responsibilities; but, then, it was all planned in April, 1966.

Mr. Barnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food introduced a further modification to his 16th June statement in the debate on Tuesday, when he said that the Prime Minister was, in fact, talking about reducing the rate of the rise in prices of a year earlier? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend is apparently now claiming to have achieved something by holding food price rises at the astronomical 10½ per cent. at which they have been rising since last June?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants prices to go on rising, he had better say so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and if he and his hon. Friends do not want S.E.T. to be halved, they had better be honest and say that as well.

Mr. Eadie: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to dispute what he said at the General Election, would he care to tell the Scottish people what he said on that occasion about unemployment? Is he aware that it has been announced today that the unemployment figures for Scotland have increased yet again—and this in summertime, which makes the position scandalous and disgraceful? Will he

do the honourable thing and resign and go to the country? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: Not only am I prepared to deal with these matters in Scotland but in the last week I have discussed them with shop stewards from the Clyde and with the Scottish T.U.C., and I am meeting the Lord Provost of Glasgow and his colleagues this afternoon.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will my right hon. Friend help us further on the question of the election date—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—and tell us how he reconciles the statement in the memoirs of the Leader of the Opposition—incidentally I trust that he has not been abducted—that the election date was fixed in 1966 with the statement of his never-to-be-forgotten though never-to-be-seen colleague the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)—[Interruption.]—that the date was fixed before the rises in prices had caught up with the rises in wages?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) revealed what we had known all along, that the decision to have the General Election was taken at the moment when hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that wages increases were highest but had not worked through to price increases. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been so annoyed because they failed in that manoeuvre. [Interruption.] As the Leader of the Opposition himself recently revealed, it enabled him on the night of Friday the 19th to sit down and work out the chapter headings for his memoirs, and then to fill them in. [Interruption.]

Mr. John Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are over one quarter of a million unemployed people who are not interested in his smug repartee? [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] When he said on 16th June that unemployment would be "cut at a stroke"—[Interruption.]—was that to be taken seriously? If so, and if unemployment was to be cut at a stroke, when will the figures of unemployed stand at less than they stood when he made that statement?

The Prime Minister: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that tens of millions of people in this country are not amused by this sort of frivolous behaviour on the Order Paper—

Mr. John Fraser: Look who is talking !

The Prime Minister: —frivolous behaviour which produces this sort of fracas on the benches opposite, from which I notice with interest that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has now contracted out.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Does not the Prime Minister consider it time for the Government to issue a revised list of promises — [Interruption.] — underlining those which should be taken seriously?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Davidson: May I have an answer to my supplementary question.

The Prime Minister: I could not hear it.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a revised list of promises underlining those which he considers the electorate should take seriously?

The Prime Minister: The Government will pursue the policies we set out at the General Election. The fact that we have done so in foreign affairs, without the reform of industrial relations—[Interruption.]—the reform of the social services and the reform of the tax system will always stand to the record of this Government and succeed in defeating hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Longden: Would my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the rise in food prices is due to the rise in world commodity prices, over which no Government here can have any control?

The Prime Minister: It is true that the price of basic commodities such as beef and butter have risen continually in world markets. It is also undoubtedly true that the increase in the price of steel, which we held back, has contributed to the rise in the cost of manufactured foodstuffs.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Prime Minister aware that what the people of this country are now interested in is not the date of the last General Election but the date of the next General Election? Will the Prime Minister also state clearly whether he did or did not promise to reduce the rise in prices at a

stroke, and how does he reconcile this with the rate of increase of 10 per cent. over the past year?

The Prime Minister: The country wants to see the policies which we are operating carried through to fruition—[Interruption.]—and that is what it is going to get. We said that we would cut S.E.T. and stop the nationalised industries' prices rising as much as they wanted them to do, and that is what we have done.

Mr. Jenkins: Would the Prime Minister please answer the question that I put to him? Did he or did he not say that the Government would reduce the rise in prices at a stroke, and how does he reconcile this with what has happened?

The Prime Minister: What we said was that we would cut S.E.T.—[Interruption.] I am glad to have confirmation that the party opposite does not want S.E.T. cut and that they do not want the nationalised industries—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the Prime Minister has to say.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that he wished to raise a point of order at the end of Questions. I wait to hear him.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I could not hear you call me, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for calling me on this point of order. It will be within the hearing of the House that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) accused the Prime Minister of mendacity. [Interruption.] As this is merely a pompous, legalistic latinism for lying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—would you, for the guidance of hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, who may wish to refer to the incredible speeches and statements from the Opposition side, rule whether that is a parliamentary expression? If it is not, will you ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a well established principle that the Chair rules


on words which it has been able to hear. A great deal of noise may have advantages or disadvantages. I did not hear the remark to which the hon. Member has referred.

Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since you rose on a point of order and the Prime Minister continued to speak, and the House, while you were standing on a point of order, failed to catch his words, will he answer the question, the reply to which the country has been waiting for a year to hear—why he has failed to fulfil his General Election pledge on rising prices? My point of order is that if Mr. Speaker rises on a point of order, surely that should apply to the Prime Minister as it applies to everyone else, and the House should now have the opportunity to hear his answer.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is an observation on the fact that if there is a great deal of noise and if Members shout "Answer" very loudly without allowing the answer then to be heard, they must suffer the consequences.

Mr. Onslow: As a study of the Order Paper reveals clearly that there must have been some sort of childish conspiracy amongst eight members of Her Majesty's Opposition to table identical Questions and so seek to monopolise the time of the House at Question time, may I ask whether it will normally be your practice, Mr. Speaker, to allow supporters of Her Majesty's Government no opportunity to balance their contribution to the exchanges, either by reducing the number of supplementary questions you are prepared to call from the gang opposite to, say, no more than three, or at least to allow supporters of Her Majesty's Government an opportunity to ask supplementary question for supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this point. I have no evidence at all of what he described as a conspiracy. Obviously, the Chair was placed in a certain difficulty by these Questions; therefore, I called three hon. Members from the Government side and interspersed them among the various hon. Members who had put down Questions.

Mr. Atkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister

said that Questions Q2 to Q9 were frivolous. As it is not possible under Standing Orders to put frivolous Questions on the Order Paper, are we to take it that the Prime Minister meant that the rise in prices and the rise in unemployment is the frivolousness of the Questions, or would he reconsider his words when he accuses hon. Members on this side of the House of putting down frivolous Questions on these important matters?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you direct that it be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT that when my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred to the record unemployment figures for Scotland, there was laughter from the Government benches?

Mr. Speaker: That is a frivolous question.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a well established principle—to use your words—that when a Minister, even a Prime Minister, chooses to group a large number of Questions together, and that is his choice, those who have put down those Questions are enabled first to ask the supplementary questions? May we take it that you are now introducing a new rule into the House without consultation or discussion among hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: No. As was pointed out to me yesterday, I am a servant of the House, and I must be guided by, for example, the recent Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which encouraged me on occasion not to permit an hon. Member to ask any supplementary question at all. So I think I have acted in accordance with a reasonable procedure. When there are eight Questions on the Order Paper from one side of the House, it is reasonable to allow a number of supplementary questions from the other side.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business for next week.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 28TH JUNE—A debate on an Opposition censure Motion on prices and unemployment.
Motion relating to the Grant-Aided Secondary Schools (Scotland) Grant (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY, 29TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Civil Aviation Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 30TH JUNE—A debate on steel, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Iron and Steel (Borrowing Powers) Order.
THURSDAY, 1ST JULY—Supply (25th Allotted day): There will be a debate on the Consultative Document on the National Health Service Reorganisation.
Motions on the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Orders.
At Seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named Opposed Private Business for consideration.
FRIDAY, 2ND JULY—Second Reading of the Housing Bill and of the Hijacking Bill.
Remaining stages of the Medicines Bill and of the Criminal Damage Bill (Lords).
MONDAY, 5TH JULY—Progress on the Report stage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the concern which I understand was expressed earlier, may I express my apologies through the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to his colleagues for my lateness in arrival this afternoon, for a reason for which I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to bear some of the responsibility, namely, the statement which is to be made to the House shortly by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Statements normally reach the Opposition in time for them to be studied before questions have to be asked on them. This statement did not arrive—perhaps for very good reason—until 3.15 p.m. We always understand that this can happen. It has happened many times in the past. I hope that it will be under-

stood that my failure to be here earlier did not arise from any discourtesy to the Prime Minister.
As to next week's business, first will the right hon. Gentleman say what plans he has for debating the Green Paper on the Health Service, in which there is considerable interest on this side of the House, recalling that in the past the Government have provided time to debate White Papers of this importance?
Second, has the right hon. Gentleman any more information than he had last week about time for debating the Consultative Document on Industrial Relations Practices?
Third, in view of next week's business, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the fact that increasingly Opposition Supply time is being eroded by Private Bills, that the number of half days now lost and, therefore, the total time lost is running at a very much higher figure than the average for the last six years, and that some of the Private Bills result from Government decisions, such as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board decision and others? Will the right hon. Gentleman enter into discussions and make a statement to the House and perhaps at a later stage refer the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure to ensure that Opposition rights are not eroded, because I am sure that is the last thing that he would want to do?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I appreciate the reasons for his absence, and I apologise to him and to his colleagues for the late arrival of the statement. I say to the House perfectly plainly that that is obviously the reason why the right hon. Gentleman was not able to be here earlier.
I note that the Opposition have chosen a Supply Day for a debate on the Green Paper on the National Health Service, and I am grateful for that. I equally note what the right hon. Gentleman says about past practices. No Government have been able always to find time to debate all such documents, and if they are sometimes debated in Supply time I think that that is very reasonable. I accept that the Opposition have a legitimate point in saying that they have chosen this for debate next Thursday.
I cannot say exactly when a debate will be possible on the Consultative Document. We have a very heavy programme of business from now until the Summer Recess. I am delighted to enter into discussions through the usual channels about when this debate might best take place.
I agree that there has been more Private Business recently. It is important that the House should consider the full position. When hon. Members oppose a Private Bill, the sponsors do everything possible to reach a compromise with the hon. Members concerned. If they fail, the Chairman of Ways and Means is obliged to put down the opposed Private Business, and he may in fact do so whatever day he likes. In practice he does his best to consult about a date. Under Standing Orders he is required to ensure that the business is allocated proportionately between Government and Opposition time. To my certain knowledge this happened in the last Parliament, and it is indeed what happens today.
As the right hon. Gentleman requests, I am of course prepared for the Select Committee on Procedure to consider the matter, but that is not a question for me. It is a question for that Committee. It is quite clear that such a consideration is within the Committee's terms of reference and, I should have thought, relevant to its present studies of the procedure of the House.

Mr. John Mendelson: As the Leader of the House has overall responsibility for all White Papers and other Government publications, will he ensure that when the White Paper on the Common Market negotiations is published it includes, not only the accounts given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but all statements made by Professor Schumann as spokesman for the Six and all statements made by official spokesmen for the Commission in Brussels in the course of the negotiations, so that the House on this momentous occasion has at its disposal the fullest possible documentation, including such statements as that made by the spokesman of the Commission at the end of the discussions of the sugar producers that this is binding only on the Government of Great Britain?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should not like in answer to a question off the cuff to accept the hon. Gentleman's doctrine about my responsibilities. I should like to study the matter more carefully before accepting that document; I think that would be wise on my part. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the White Paper. The White Paper will set out the position absolutely fully.

Mr. Michael Foot: In view of next Wednesday's debate on steel, will the Leader of the House say when and in what form a statement of Government policy will be issued on this subject?

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make a statement on Monday. As I promised previously, following that statement I have provided time for a debate in Government time on Wednesday.

Mr. Buchan: I had intended to raise in the form of an application under Standing Order No. 9 the question of the unprecedented rise in unemployment in Scotland in the month of June. However, in the interests of time, because of the statement that is about to be made, I forbore from doing so. I therefore wonder whether we can have from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the debate next Monday will be replied to by the Secretary of State for Scotland so that we can try to find an explanation for this incredible situation.

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He has made his point. However, I cannot give him the assurance which he seeks.

Mr. Mulley: Will the Leader of the House give consideration to arranging a debate on roads and road safety, in view of the great interest in this subject and in view of the important statement made by the Minister yesterday in the form of a Written Answer?
Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the practice of informing hon. Members by means of a Press statement in the Vote Office and in their post of what amounts to a Government White Paper? As this followed another statement outside the House by the Secretary of State last week about bridges, may we have an assurance that sometimes statements of public concern emanating from the


Department of the Environment will be made in the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly. I want to make it clear to the House, as I did yesterday, that whatever my responsibilities may be as referred to by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), clearly I have overall responsibility for ensuring that the business of the House is conducted in the interests of the House as a whole, and this means getting the right balance as to what statements should be made orally in the House and what should be made in written form. It must always be borne in mind that there are always claims—all Governments face this—for oral statements on some subjects, and several of them every day. If we conceded all of these, it would interfere with the proper business of the House.
However, I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I cannot say when such a debate would take place. Statements will be made by the Department of the Environment in the House when the matters seems, both to the Department and to me, to be appropriate for oral statement.

Mr. Alfred Morris: May I take it that the writ for the Macclesfield by-election will be issued next week? If not, why not?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman knows—[Laughter.]—I am not quite sure why everyone laughs. Is it simply because I suggested that the hon. Gentleman knows? What I think that the hon. Gentleman knows must surely be in my mind and not necessarily in the minds of hon. Members.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, I can merely give the simple answer that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and not for me.

Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Sheffield Park (Mr. Mulley). We accept that there is often detailed information which cannot be given by means of either oral or written statement but which must be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. However, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is a little embarrassing for hon. Members to be rung up by newspapers 24 hours before Written Answers

are to be given, to be given all the information which the Answers contain, and to be asked to comment on matters of which no other right hon. or hon. Member has had any notice?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That would be wrong. I will certainly see why it is happening.

Mr. Whitehead: Bearing in mind the important statement the House is about to hear and what the Prime Minister said last week about the need for informed debate on the Common Market to take place in the country, will the Leader of the House consider authorising the broadcasting on sound radio only of the whole debate to take note of the White Paper?

Mr. Whitelaw: These are matters which the Services Committee will be perfectly prepared to consider.

Mr. James Hamilton: In view of the many deputations meeting the Prime Minister, such as that from the Scottish Trades Union Council, the shop stewards at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and, today, Glasgow Corporation councillors and officials, may I have an assurance that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on the results of those deliberations and what he intends to do to meet the protestations made to him?

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend naturally receives these deputations and deals with them. The question of a statement to the House is one for my right hon. Friend. I cannot give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Bob Brown: In view of the considerable anxieties in the country, particularly among members of youth committees and youth advisory committees, when may we have a debate on the future of the Youth Service?

Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise that it is an extremely important matter and one in which the whole House is extremely interested. But I cannot promise when time for such a debate can be given.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that there is a direct conflict between what the management of U.C.S. says was given to the Government and what the Government say they received. Each side seems to be calling the other liars. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for


Trade and Industry gives us a fuller statement of his position as he sees it some time next week?

Mr. Whitelaw: Without necessarily accepting what the hon. Gentleman says, I shall certainly call to the attention of my right hon. Friend what he says. I cannot guarantee that a further statement will be necessary. I do not believe at first sight that it is.

Mr. Lomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last time we discussed the National Health Service, on the question of increased charges, we had about 2½ hours for debate? Does not he think that it is wrong that we should finish at seven o'clock next Thursday the debate on a very important document which many hon. Members wish to discuss? Will he reconsider the matter? We on this side are fully aware that hon. Members opposite do not want the National Health Service, but that is no reason why it should not be fully debated.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has committed himself to a number of mistakes. First, the previous debate to which he referred was on a number of Prayers. It would have been perfectly open to the Government to have those Prayers debated at the normal time for Prayers, after 10 o'clock. After discussion through the usual channels, the Government met the Opposition's request that there should be a longer debate and that it should take place earlier in the day. Therefore, it is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman now to suggest that we did not go a long way to ensure that extra time earlier in the day was given for a debate.
As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I acknowledged to the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition had chosen the subject for their Supply day on Thursday. I wish that it were possible not to have the opposed Private Business, but that is not a matter for me. The Opposition understood fully when they chose this subject that it could be debated for only half a day, because it was their turn to give time to opposed Private Business.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The Leader of the House has pointed out that we provided Supply time. I hope that he will agree that this is not to be regarded as

a precedent. In all previous cases Government time has been provided. It is only because we knew that because of the present legislative situation it was not possible for the Government to offer time that we have done this. We knew that there would be only half a day, but we wanted a day of Government time, and we expect to have it in future.

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that in my original answer to him I was generous enough to recognise what he was doing. At this time of the year there are many debates that we all know we want before the House rises for the Summer Recess, and it is not only a question of legislative time but of deploying the time of the House to the best advantage. I do not regard the decision as being in any way a precedent, and I fully recognise the Government's obligations in these matters.

Mr. Douglas: We have had repeated promises from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about a statement of policy towards the shipbuilding industry. When will the statement be made? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication whether we shall have the opportunity to debate it in the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say when the statement will be made, and therefore it would be premature for me to discuss the possibilities of debate if a statement is made. I am always prepared to discuss the possibilities of further debate through the usual channels.

Mr. Onslow: As most of the time next Friday will be spent on discussing the Housing Bill and there will be little time to discuss the Hijacking Bill, will my right hon. Friend consider referring the latter Bill to a Second Reading Committee?

Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that the House will manage to deal with both Bills next Friday. I think that this is one of those occasions when I should use the time-honoured phrase, "Let us see how we get on".

Mr. Arthur Lewis: A few weeks ago the Leader of the House said that he hoped that the Lord Boyle Committee would circulate Members. The circular letter has not yet been sent. As the


Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department told me in a Written Answer yesterday that Civil Servants who in October, 1964, were on the same salary scale as M.P.s are now getting £1,900 a year more than M.P.s, can the right hon. Gentleman make a statement next week telling me where I can send the information to Lord Boyle and when I am likely to receive the circular, because I have a lot of information I should like to submit to him?

Mr. Whitelaw: My promise will be fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman will very shortly receive the questionnaire. I expect that he will receive a letter from Lord Boyle at the same time telling him that if he cannot give all the information that he seeks to give in answer to a fairly lengthy questionnaire he will be able to write as much as he likes in addition to his answers to the questionnaire. Therefore, I think that all the matters he seeks to bring before the House now he will be perfectly be able to put before Lord Boyle and his Committee in writing.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will facilitate a debate on the industrial relations code before the Industrial Relations Bill becomes law?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have promised that I will discuss the matter through the usual channels. In view of the very heavy business, I cannot give the positive assurance that the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I have undertaken that I will certainly discuss the whole timing through the usual channels.

Mr. Urwin: In view of the continuing deep concern about high unemployment in the development areas, will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing Government time for further debate on the Government's regional policy, if not next week, certainly in the near future? Will he instruct the Ministers responsible in such a debate to apply themselves very seriously to the Government's policy on dispersal of Government offices, especially in view of the disregard of the needs and requirements of the development areas, as expressed in the decision this week to site the V.A.T. headquarters in Southend?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has got in some of his points for the

debate. I cannot give an undertaking that there will be any such debate before the Houses rises for the Summer Recess, because I must point out constantly that we have a great deal of important business which the whole House wishes to transact.

Mr. Ross: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that if the rates of unemployment prevailing in Scotland were prevailing in the rest of the country there would be today over 1,100,000 unemployed in the country? That being so, if he dare not allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to speak on the subject in Monday's debate, who is to deal with it? Can the right hon. Gentleman promise that a plan will be put forward by the Government urgently to deal with this serious matter?

Mr. Whitelaw: Whilst I accept that it is a serious matter, I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Government's speakers in the debate on Monday will become perfectly clear on Monday when they speak.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the meeting with the European Community which I attended in Luxembourg on 21st and 22nd June. As the House will have seen, this meeting achieved a number of agreements of the very greatest importance. The House will, I hope, bear with me if the length of my statement is in relation to their importance.
The meeting first reached agreement on arrangements for British participation in the main institutions of the Community. Briefly, these arrangements would give this country a place in the institutions equal to that of France, Germany and Italy.
Certain further details, including our participation in the European Court of Justice, remain to be decided, but I think it is already clear that there will be no difficulty in making arrangements which are perfectly satisfactory to us.
We also reached satisfactory agreement on the problems connected with our entry into the European Coal and Steel Community. In the first place, the Community delegation confirmed that they had no intention of calling in question the size or the legal position of the British Steel Corporation or the National Coal Board. We ourselves had never regarded this as a matter for the negotiations. But I was glad to have the Community's statement on the record.
For our part, we have accepted the Treaty of Paris and its implementing legislation and have undertaken to remove incompatibilities between our legislation and practices on the one hand and the Treaty of Paris on the other, either before or at any rate very soon after our accession. As regards transitional measures, it has been agreed that tariffs for steel products covered by the Treaty of Paris would move at the same rate as has been agreed for industrial products generally. We have also secured a transitional period of two years during which we might, if we wished, maintain control over the export within the enlarged Community of certain high grades of scrap.
In return for our access to the reserve funds of the Coal and Steel Community, which amount to about £90 million, we have undertaken to contribute roughly £24 million to the reserve funds of the Coal and Steel Community. This is rather less than would be called for on a strict application of the ratio of the value of our coal and steel production to theirs. The £24 million would be paid in three equal annual instalments, starting from the date of accession. The money would be banked in the United Kingdom and would be used primarily, if not wholly, in this country.
I turn now to arrangements to cover the period which would have to elapse between the signature of an accession treaty providing for our membership of the Communities and the entry into force of the treaty after the completion of processes of ratification here and in the member countries of the Community.
We have agreed with the Community that in this period joint procedures would be established to ensure that decisions taken by the institutions of the Community took due account of the interests of candidates as prospective

members, and that consultations would take place before such decisions were taken. It was perfectly reasonable that the Community, on its side, should ask for the same procedures to apply to decisions to be taken by the candidate states which might affect their obligations as prospective members of the Community.
We also raised with the Community the problems of our hill farming areas. They themselves have similar problems and have adopted a variety of methods to deal with them. So they were sympathetic to the needs of farmers in our hill areas and recognised the need for appropriate action in these areas where special conditions obtain. I am, therefore, satisfied that in the event of entry we should be able to give the continuing assistance needed to maintain the incomes of farmers in the hill areas.
I now turn to New Zealand. The agreement which we reached with the Community in order to provide adequate arrangements for the very special position of New Zealand is a complex one, and I ask the House to bear with me if I set it out in some detail.
First, it was agreed that there would be special arrangements for New Zealand dairy products. Quantitative guarantees have been agreed for the first five years, during which New Zealand would be guaranteed a market for agreed quantities. Butter is, of course, the product of particular importance to New Zealand. The guaranteed quantity of butter would be reduced during the transitional period so that in the fifth year New Zealand would be guaranteed 80 per cent. of present quantities. For cheese, for which New Zealand can in any case expect to continue sales to this country at a reasonable level after our entry, the quantities guaranteed would be reduced to 20 per cent. in the fifth year. The result is that in terms of milk equivalent New Zealand would be assured of selling 71 per cent. of the present quantity even in 1977. The price level would also be guaranteed to New Zealand at the average of that enjoyed here during the years 1969–72. We estimate that this will result in prices to New Zealand substantially higher than the average of recent years.
During this first five-year period, it would be open to the Council of the Community, on which we would, of


course, be fully represented in accordance with the agreement on institutions of which I have just told the House, to make adjustments as between guaranteed quantities of butter and of cheese, provided that the tonnage expressed as milk equivalent corresponded to the total quantities approved for the two products for the year in question.
During the third year after our accession, the institutions of the enlarged Community would review the butter situation in the light of the supply and demand position and trends in the major producing and consuming countries of the world, particularly the Community and in New Zealand.
Among the considerations of which account would be taken during this review would be the progress made towards an effective world agreement on milk products and the question of New Zealand's progress towards diversification of its economy and its exports. The Community has undertaken to make every effort to promote the conclusion of an international agreement on dairy products. We have, moreover, agreed that the enlarged Community would undertake to pursue a trade policy which would not frustrate New Zealand's efforts to diversify. Increased earnings by New Zealand in other markets might result. I would interject that this particular element of the agreement is of the greatest importance to New Zealand and has been appreciated by New Zealand Ministers as such.
In the light of this review, the Council of the enlarged Community would decide on suitable measures for ensuring the continuation of the derogation system for New Zealand beyond the end of 1977. This also has been particularly welcomed by New Zealand.
All this means that New Zealand even in 1977, six years hence, would be guaranteed sales of 136,000 tons of butter and at least 15,000 tons of cheese. These are minimum guarantees and she might well sell more. Since we estimate that the price which New Zealand would receive would be substantially above the level of recent years, this would give her the prospect over the five years of total export earnings at or above the level of the level of those which she has enjoyed in our market in recent years.
Taken together, this represents a very satisfactory deal for New Zealand and a very considerable concession by the European Community, the implications of which will not be lost on hon. Members. In the circumstances, it is gratifying, but not surprising, that the New Zealand Prime Minister has commented:
One of the main requirements from our point of view was that there should be comprehensive and specific criteria to govern the review of the special arrangement when the time came for it to be renewed. The review formula represents a major concession to New Zealand and a result which is highly satisfactory.
I am confident that we can safeguard New Zealand's interests within the framework of the broad agreement reached between Britain and the Six. Moreover we shall be on a unique footing in our future dealings with the enlarged Community. No other country will enjoy the same advantages".
I now turn to arrangements for our participation in the Community's budgetary system.
Here the arrangements which we have agreed would provide for a maximum annual contribution to be paid by the United Kingdom in the first 5 years amounting to 8·64 per cent. of the Community's budget in 1973, rising to 18·92 per cent. of the Community's budget in 1977. Before the end of 1977 the Commission would calculate the contribution which the United Kingdom would have made in 1977 had we then applied in full the Community's budgetary system. On the basis of this calculation, a limitation would be applied to our contribution for a further 2 years, namely, 1978 and 1979, to ensure gradual progression to our full final contribution.
The House will want to know how the resulting contributions would compare with the estimates which I gave to hon. Members on 16th December when we made our initial proposals. The estimates of the budget of an enlarged Community have been revised downwards substantially since last year. At that time, it was thought that the budget of an enlarged Community might grow to a figure of $4,500 million in 1977. However, the butter mountain of which we heard so much at that time has melted, and agricultural prices in the Community have risen very little over the past four years, while world prices have gone on rising. The price gap, and consequently


the cost of agricultural support in the Community, have accordingly fallen. The budget is now expected to grow from $3,300 million in 1973 to $3,800 million in 1977.
In these circumstances, our net contribution, for it is important to remember that we shall be receiving payments from the Community's budget, would be around £100 million pounds in 1973, rising perhaps to about £200 million pounds in 1977. These compare with £30 million for the first year under the arrangements I explained to the House on 16th December for 1973 and £140–£180 million for 1977.
These sums are important ones. But the House will recognise that the Community has made arrangements which would be very satisfactory to this country on a number of other issues during the meeting which I have just attended, particularly on New Zealand. It is fair and right that this country should, if it joins the Community, play its proper part in all aspects of Community policies and developments.
Finally, the conference discussed fisheries, and I want to make quite clear what the position is. As the House knows, we have put forward a proposition based on two essentials. First, a recognition by the Community of the need for change in the common fisheries policy and secondly a clear indication of what would be necessary as respects access to fishing grounds in particular. We have suggested exclusive fishing up to six miles from existing baselines for vessels genuinely fishing from home ports. This still remains our position.
The Six have now recognised that, in an enlarged Community, the access provisions of the common fisheries policy would have to be reconsidered and this will be the point of departure for the further discussions which will be necessary. It has been agreed that those discussions should be held with the Community at Ministerial level at a meeting in the week beginning 12th July, and that, at our request, the other applicant countries should also be invited in view of the fact that, as the House is well aware, fisheries is also a matter of great importance to them. I know that the House places great emphasis on a firm agreement on limits before reaching a decision, and that

is why I have asked for this early meeting. I will then report further to the House.
I would like to pay a particular tribute to the understanding and co-operation with which the Community delegation dealt with these matters and to add a special word of appreciation to the rôle which the Commission played during what were arduous, but what I hope the House will agree, successful negotiations.
There is still plenty of work to be done. We have to reach agreement with the Community on transitional arrangements for our movement to Community policies regarding capital movements, on the European Investment Bank and on the safeguarding of employment in Northern Ireland, on the position of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and of course on fisheries.
But the agreements reached in Luxembourg mean that we have now broken the back of the negotiations. We have been able to progress so far because the Community has demonstrated its political will to see the Community enlarged and to have Britain in as a full member with it.

Mr. Harold Lever: Altogether without prejudice to the judgment of hon. Members of the outcome of the negotiations, I think that we would want to recognise the arduous effort and work put in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his team—

Mr. Skinner: Rubbish.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Lever: I entirely reserve the right of all hon. Members to decide whether champagne or some less agreeable liquid is appropriate.
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he proposes to let the House have the White Paper and whether, in drawing up this White Paper, he will see that it is in plain English with a linguistic balance directed towards informing this House and the public fully of the meaning and consequences of the terms of entry?
Could he tell the House something more about New Zealand? We have read reported statements of some concern in New Zealand about the fixing of the price levels. I am anxious that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should tell the


House why this particular formula for determining price levels was selected. As to fisheries, will he give some indication of when he hopes the loose ends which plainly exist will be tied up? Can he say whether he expects to be able to announce in good time before any decision is taken rather firmer proposals of what has been agreed here?
Finally, may I return to my plea that the House may be told in a clear manner what it is that the Prime Minister has agreed and what it is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has agreed about sterling. It seems to be unfortunate that an area of fundamental importance to this country should require illumination, at the moment almost exclusively provided in weekly magazines, rather than from the Prime Minister or the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Could we have a clear statement, either in the White Paper or in some other way, about the detail of the sterling rôle which has been agreed?

Mr. Rippon: I much appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman had to say by way of introduction. As to the White Paper, I cannot give a precise date of publication. Obviously it will be for the convenience of the House that it should be made available as quickly as possible. It is a document which will cover grave and weighty matters, and I am sure that every effort will be made to see that it sets out the implications of the agreements reached and the nature of the terms and the full consequences of them.
Dealing first with the agreement about New Zealand, I think I can fairly say that at the end of two days of arduous negotiation there was only one matter remaining which was of real concern to New Zealand. Throughout the negotiations, I remained in the closest possible contact with the New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Jack Marshall. Indeed, there were long periods of time when we were together inside the conference building. The anxiety about price related to the minimum guarantee spread over a period of years. It is normal in agreements of this type generally to take a representative period of years. The original proposal of the Community was that we should take 1968–69, 1969–70, and 1971–72. In the early years, the price was much lower than it is now, so clearly

it is in New Zealand's interest to take the highest level. We are referring to world prices having risen, which is one of the reasons why the shape of the Community budget has changed.
Because of the rise in prices, it is obviously in New Zealand's interests to take the period between 1970–72 rather than 1968–69. We struck out 1968. We could not persuade the Community to strike out 1969. It could be argued that this was at that stage a matter which concerned only the United Kingdom, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the housewife. The Community argued that this was a special arrangement, a special trading agreement of a sort not normally concluded with third countries, carrying the matter forward for a long period of time and that it would create a terrible precedent if we took only one real year and two hypothetical years, especially when we were talking of a time when New Zealand prices were rather higher than had been the average in the past three years.
If I might put it this way, because I appreciate that it is a matter of great concern, in 1970–71 New Zealand butter earnings were £52 million. Under the arrangements we have made in 1973 it has a minimum guarantee of £62 million, in 1974 the figure is £60 million and in 1975 it is £57 million. Of course, 1975 is the year of the review, and we worked very hard to get an arrangement whereby the review should come in the third year, when New Zealand will be guaranteed 88 per cent. of her butter exports and 60 per cent. of her cheese exports. Of course, she can sell more. If the world price rises she can get more, but if the world price falls she still has a minimum ceiling.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While reechoing, perhaps a trifle more emphatically, the congratulations of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) to my right hon. and learned Friend on his immensely strenuous and skilful work in these complex negotiations, may I ask him, in view of his considerable efforts on behalf of New Zealand, whether he can clarify one point in respect of the arrangements relating to that country? We all hope that at the end of the five-year transitional period a new agreement will be


arrived at, but in the event of a failure by the Community to agree as to the future, will my right hon. and learned Friend explain what the position would then be? Would it simply continue indefinitely on the fifth year basis until a further agreement were made, or would all guaranteed entry come to a sudden halt?

Mr. Rippon: There would be no question of guaranteed entry coming to a sudden halt. The whole purpose of the arrangement we have made is to ensure that there will be continuity. The agreement refers to what will happen in the first five years and to the need in the third year to detail the arrangements for the continuing derogation. At that stage we shall have to determine the matter according to the criteria which we have set out in so much detail. I do not think that there is any likelihood of difficulty in that regard.
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) for not having dealt with his two further questions—I was so concerned about New Zealand, about which I know the House feels deeply. He asked about the loose ends and, in particular, fisheries. One reason why I pressed for an early meeting on 12th July was to be able to give the House as soon as possible details about this matter which concerns so many people inside and outside the House. I cannot say exactly what the time-table will be on the other matters, but, of course, we have to clear them up before there is any question of ratification. Some of the details in relation to secondary legislation and other matters will carry over into the autumn, but certainly the House will have the full details of every aspect of the negotiations before any vote is taken.
I am conscious that I manifestly failed to satisfy the House on the last occasion of the adequacy of the arrangements which we have made for sterling. My difficulty is that sterling is not part of the negotiations, except in so far as the harmonisation of capital movements is concerned. We agreed that this would be a matter for discussion. I stated the British position in the negotiating conference and, after the French Minister had said that he accepted it, it was agreeable to the Community as a whole. I

do not think I can add anything to the statement I made in Brussels. Although my explanation may have been inadequate, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was by accident and not by design.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has explained what we have decided on sterling. As I told the House on the last occasion, we have not entered into any specific commitments in this matter. Whatever is done will be done with good sense, in an orderly way and having regard to the various conditions which have been elaborated—the need to maintain international monetary liquidity, the need to ensure that there is no undue burden on our balance of payments, and the need to protect the interests of existing sterling holders.

Mr. Thorpe: May I, first, congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his advisers on their skilful work to date and welcome the success to date in progressing the welcome application made by the previous Government? Will the Chancellor of the Duchy say when he expects the outstanding matters to be resolved? Secondly, accepting the important matters that still have to be resolved, does he agree that the main factors involved are now sufficiently clear that, leaving aside those who do not want to get nearer to the Continent than paddling off Ramsgate and who will, therefore, reject any terms which the right hon. and learned Gentleman may bring back, the time has now come to take the political and economic case to the people of this country and to convince them that the future of this country does not rest with those who believe in isolation but in a larger and united Europe?

Mr. Rippon: To deal first with the matters still to be dealt with in the negotiations, as I said, we shall be considering specially on 12th July the problem of fisheries. We have said that we want to deal in particular with the whole question of access and conservation. Some of the other matters in relation to fisheries, such as marketing arrangements, which are very complex and have to be considered with the other applicants, may take a little longer. We may have another Ministerial meeting at the end of July—that is not entirely precluded. The


deputies will go on meeting and progress is being made as rapidly as possible.
I have said that I believe we have broken the back of the negotiations because it is now possible to set before the House and the country a much clearer balance sheet. Obviously, in the negotiations we have been dealing simply with the burdens in relation to the financial contribution and the difficult issues where we had to have special arrangements for ourselves, for third countries, the Commonwealth and others. This has tended to focus attention on only one side of the picture. Now we are able to appreciate very much more the advantages which will accrue to us. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view of what a satisfactory conclusion to these negotiations and the enlargement of the Community would mean, not only to Europe but to this country, the Commonwealth and the whole free world.

Sir R. Turton: Following the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, if at the end of the transitional period Britain wants to exempt from Community preference quantities of Commonwealth sugar or New Zealand butter and the other members do not agree, will one country, for example, France, have the power of veto so that we cannot do it?

Mr. Rippon: As I have indicated before, the position is rather different in the context of sugar and New Zealand. The developing countries of the Commonwealth who are parties to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement have been offered the broad protection of whatever form of association or trading agreement they may choose to negotiate. Therefore, if we fail to reach any agreement at all on sugar, which is highly improbable, the existing arrangements would continue. The assurance of continuity in general terms for New Zealand has been built into the agreement we have reached with reference to the first five years and the continuing arrangements, and we have provided for a review in 1975 as to the means of doing it in relation to all the criteria which we have agreed between ourselves, the Community and New Zealand. It is not possible to foresee now exactly what the provision would be in terms of quantities and price. We do not know what world market and Com-

munity market conditions might be prevailing then. It is provided that after the end of the first transitional period, in 1978, the guarantee should relate to butter. It may still relate to a higher figure than the one we have put in for 1977, because in terms of milk equivalent at 71 per cent. it would be 85 per cent. of the current figure and not the present 80 per cent. What the precise figure would be, I cannot say.
In regard to the arrangements made by the Community for determining these matters, those concerned about British sovereignty have had an interest in saying that matters affecting the vital interests of any country should be the subject of a veto. I think it inconceivable that this would be applied in the case of New Zealand. I imagine that what would happen is that the Community would do with this matter what it does with all problems, and that is to sit down and work out what is the right trade agreement in the precise circumstances of the third year of review.

Mr. Jay: In the case of New Zealand, do not these arrangements amount to this: that in the first five years there will be a 30 per cent. reduction in guaranteed supplies of dairy products, and that after that period there is no firm quantitative guarantee whatever?

Mr. Rippon: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, originally in 1967 no arrangement was made about cheese, but we felt it right—and certainly it helps—to have some guarantee on cheese, albeit that it is phasing out. At the time when the review takes place in 1975, the quantities would be 88 per cent. of butter and 60 per cent. of cheese. These will decrease, but the position of butter will clearly need to be considered again in 1975 in terms of the quantity that will be required. But there is no guarantee of a particular quantity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or for that matter of a particular price, because that falls for negotiation at that time.

Mr. John Mendelson: Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not say so in the first place?

Mr. Rippon: I have made it perfectly clear, or I have tried to do so, that the quantity and price of butter in the period after 1977 will fall to be re-negotiated in 1975, according to the criteria of the


review which we have established. In the light of the Community's agreement that we are talking about only the first five years and that in 1975 we shall be discussing the measures necessary to continue the derogation, manifestly it would be a breach of that agreement if anybody were to say at that time, "Nothing after 1977".

Mr. Raphael Tuck: France said so.

Mr. Rippon: France has said no such thing. We have reached a fair and honourable agreement with the Community. One of the things that arose from these negotiations was that the Europeans said they wanted to put us to the test of whether we are good Europeans. We have passed that test.

Mr. Orme: Ask France about the period between 1939 and 1945.

Mr. Rippon: I did not put a date on it. I was going to add that we had a test to put to the Community as to whether we could negotiate fair and reasonable terms not just for ourselves but for the Commonwealth. The Community has shown that it is willing to do so.

Mr. Blaker: Is not the New Zealand Government rather pleased with the arrangement my right hon. and learned Friend has made? Would he repeat to the House some of the remarks which have been made by New Zealand Ministers?

Mr. Rippon: I think it is fair to say that the New Zealand Government have welcomed these arrangements. They probably represent one of the best trade arrangements with a third country which have ever been negotiated. Understandably, there was reservation on the part of New Zealand from the point of view of price. New Zealand must in future years reserve its position as to what is the highest minimum price it can negotiate. We think that we have reached a fair arrangement at this time.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Could I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to recall the White Paper of February 1970 on estimated costs and benefits, in which there was a wide spread of the estimates of cost because of assumptions which could not then have been clarified? Since many of these matters have been clarified partly by negotiation and partly

by the actions of the Six, is he now able to say whether he will be in a position to get a narrower range or a single figure? If he cannot give the figure this afternoon, will he say whether such an estimate is made in the forthcoming White Paper?
Secondly, with regard to New Zealand, it is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House would still like more clarification arising from the question put by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Although the whole House recognises that New Zealand has obtained the best terms ever granted by the Six to any third country, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will surely realise that so far as Britain is concerned New Zealand has never been regarded as a third country. Would he recall that on Monday, in an obviously rough set of exchanges, the French were heard to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the Common Market if he wanted to continue permanent arrangements with New Zealand? Have we the right to permanent arrangements with New Zealand if we want them?

Mr. Rippon: Certain comments were made in the course of negotiations on and off the record, but it is clear that the original text of the Community, which was unacceptable to us, has been drastically changed. It is now in a form which is acceptable to us and acceptable to New Zealand, subject only to the question of price. Of course New Zealand is not for us a third country, and we have always had the closest possible trading arrangements with New Zealand. The fact is that under this agreement New Zealand's earnings will be at a far higher average rate than when it was dealing directly with us. In regard to butter, by 1975 minimum earnings would be £57 million, compared with £52 million in 1970–71; and even in 1977, when the figure is down to a minimum of 80 per cent., the figure will be £51 million. We base these quotas on the minimum entitlement of New Zealand in this market, and in recent years that has been higher than the figure of exports to New Zealand. I hope that helps to explain the position to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I do not want to press the right hon. and learned Gentleman unduly, but is he aware that the


answers he has given relate entirely to the next three years? I was asking about arrangements after 1977. He did not in any way begin to answer the question I put to him on that period. It is only fair that I should not press him today for an answer if it is difficult, but I hope that he will undertake to see that the points made by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, including myself, are fully answered in the White Paper when it is presented to the House.

Mr. Rippon: Every trading agreement of this kind needs to be renegotiated at a certain point in regard to quantities and price levels. This we have agreed to do. But the principle of continuity is built into the agreement. There will have to be a general agreement between all the parties, but whether they are problems which concern us or any other country or New Zealand, they will be dealt with in exactly the same manner as similar problems are dealt with within the Community as a whole. There is a similarity of treatment in the final analysis in the review procedure as arises in every other case.
To come back to the first question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, of course the 1970 White Paper in the circumstances of that time gave a broad range of possibilities. It will be possible in the forthcoming White Paper to narrow the range. I do not know that one can ever keep to absolutely precise figures in regard to a period so far ahead as 1977, 1978 or even 1980, because the size and shape of the budget will change. When we are in the Community we will have an interest to some extent in changing the size and shape of the budget so that we shall have more to spend on regional and industrial policies which are of interest to us. But within that limitation, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will give in the White Paper as much information as humanly possible both on figures and the effect on balance of payments over the whole range of matters on which we have been negotiating.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that, in spite of his own hard and devoted work, the numerous and prior concessions on matters of major importance have made these negotiations only of marginal

effect? While the plaudits of the Marketeers still ring in my right hon. and learned Friend's ears, will he recall the wise and prophetic words of Sir Robert Walpole, "They are ringing their bells now; soon, they will be wringing their hands"?

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend has deep convictions on this matter and that we do not always share the same view about some of the problems. But it is not right to say that there have been numerous and prior concessions. It has not been fully appreciated, though I can say so more firmly now that I have negotiated our contribution to the budget, how many concessions have been made by the Community to us. If I may cite one example, there are the ararngements that we made for a whole range of commodities which we felt were important to British industry and might be at risk if we entered the Community. There are matters of great concern to Canada, Australia and other countries. As a result of our agreements, well over 90 per cent. of all these commodities which come into the country duty-free will continue to come in duty-free after enlargement. That is a substantial concession to our point of view. We have negotiated not only this for New Zealand, but an agreement for all the developing countries of the Commonwealth. We have made, commodity by commodity, in the case of newsprint, plywood, aluminium, lead and bullion, arrangements which affect particular members of the Commonwealth in relation to industrial products, and we have built into the agreement a total comprehensive range of protections during the transitional arrangement as regards any disruption which might take in trade between us and any third country, including Canada, Australia and the developing Commonwealth. We have an agreement which covers not only sugar, bacon, butter, fruit and vegetables, but one which covers every aspect of trade which might be disrupted as a result of our joining the Community.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, as one who represents a steel constituency, I am pleased that he has been able to make the categorical statement that the British Steel Corporation will be left alone? Secondly, does the right hon. and learned


Gentleman realise that, as one who is prepared to accept the new terms, so far as I can understand them, I should welcome more details in the White Paper about how the New Zealand transitional arrangements can be made permanent—the right hon. and learned Gentleman's phrase was "the continuation of the system after 1977".

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that when one reads a long and detailed statement of this kind it is difficult for anyone to follow all the criteria for the review. They will be set out in the White Paper. They will emphasise that these are arrangements for the first five years, and that measures will be taken to ensure continuity. There is an element of doubt, as there must be, about the nature of the exact agreement concluded in 1975, in the review year. We shall try to set out all these matters as fully as possible.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend on the success of the negotiations and ask him, following his penultimate reply, whether he is proposing any special machinery at this stage to help our Commonwealth friends, for whom he has negotiated so much under these arrangements, so that they may take full advantage of them?

Mr. Rippon: As regards the offer of association for the developing countries of the Commonwealth—Africa, the Caribbean, Mauritius, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga—the details of negotiation are for them. They will have a choice as to which form of association or trade agreement they prefer. Therefore, they will deal directly with the Community. Naturally, we shall bs glad to do anything that we can do to help in any matter of concern to them.

Sir Myer Galpern: In the event of Great Britain joining the Community, what will be the relationship between the Community and the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey and the other Channel Islands, and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that any terms and conditions negotiated on their behalf are fully acceptable to them?

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have been in touch with representatives of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. We have proposed to the Community that

what would be most suitable in their case would be a form of association. We have not yet discussed the details, but we want to conclude arrangements which are satisfactory to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I wish to ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question about the Community budget. Does he anticipate that as the years go by the returns to this country from the Community budget will increase?

Mr. Rippon: I think so. What is important to us is not simply the gross contribution that we make but the net contribution that we make after allowing for receipts. We have taken a fairly conservative view of receipts, as we must while a large proportion of the budget is devoted to agriculture and where our likely receipts are not high in the early years. But they tend to rise under the present budgetary arrangements. We envisage that the size and shape of the budget will change, and this will determine the position in the later years. Certainly we have a direct interest in ensuring that a proper proportion of the budget goes to regional industrial policies, which are of great importance to us and will be of great benefit to the regions in this country.

Mr. Taverne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that most of those who genuinely wanted the negotiations to succeed will regard the outcome as satisfactory and acceptable—[Interruption.]—that is, as opposed to those who did not wish them to succeed? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make urgent representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the policy for entry will not command wider acceptance unless he reverses the policies to deal with the recession?

Mr. Rippon: Naturally, I accept the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's representations. However, I cannot subscribe to the second part. That is not a matter for me. I believe that, as one right hon. Gentleman said, it has been well understood by those who have supported the application—that is to say, if fair terms can be achieved—that Britain's entry would mean a great contribution to the growth of our economy and towards solving the problems which


give so much concern to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I, too, offer congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend on the outcome of the negotiations, even though it is clear that for New Zealand they are 4 per cent. better than disastrous. May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for an assurance that this very important matter of sterling will be dealt with in the White Paper, especially as there will have to be a further debate on capital movements, which are important to this whole consideration? Will my right hon. and learned Friend also assure the House that, when the White Paper discussing the broad issues of this country's interests is published, the prospects for growth and of employment as a result of entering the Market will be made clear to the people?

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in his third point. This is of great importance. As for his first point about New Zealand, if he reads what I have said in my statement—and it will be set out in the White Paper—I am sure that he will agree that it is an agreement that this House can accept. After all, the New Zealand Government regard it as satisfactory. As for sterling, that only arose in the negotiations in the context of the exchange of statements that we had in Brussels. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer can deal with the additional implications. It will be one of the matters which will be covered in the White Paper.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: In his statement the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that agreement had been reached in order to preserve the labour position in Northern Ireland. Will he tell us whether negotiations were conducted concerning Wales and Scotland and other regions of acute economic difficulty and whether he considers that it would be fair, reasonable and necessary to protect these areas in the same way.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood. We have not yet reached agreement about Northern Ireland. I listed that as a matter still to be settled, but we have put forward proposals which refer to the obligation

of continuing the Northern Ireland Employment Act.
Concerning the United Kingdom generally, successive Governments have accepted the principle of the free movement of labour. I do not think that any particular difficulties will arise. The areas of high unemployment will benefit from the growth of industry and the expansion of the market.

Mr. Tapsell: Is it a matter of agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Six that if we enter the European Economic Community we shall be entering an organisation which, in its political form, will, in the foreseeable future, be confederal and not federal?

Mr. Rippon: I believe that the President of the French Republic was right when he said that at this stage of the development of a united Europe talk of confederation or federation was unrealistic. We shall move forward step by step, with realism, harmonising our policies, and in that way we shall see how the Community develops. What it ultimately develops into is not a matter about which we can take a decision today. People vary in their ideas about how fast progress should be. All these matters will be fully within our control when we are inside the Community. A constitutional change of that kind could not take place without the unanimous agreement of all the Members of the Community.

Mr. Mackintosh: In view of the clear help that it has been to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand in Brussels or in Luxembourg to discuss technical difficulties in putting the New Zealand case and ultimately giving his approval to the agreement reached, would it not similarly be a good idea to take a representative group of the leaders of the fishing industry for the subsequent negotiations? This is somewhat similar in the sense that not only is it a hard matter of fact but a matter of deep inbuilt fears, and to have some of the fishermen there to advise him would be of assistance. It would also prevent the outbreak of a lot of people more keen on fishermen than the fishermen themselves.

Mr. Rippon: I think that many hon. Members have taken the last point. On


the substantive suggestion, we must remember that these are intergovernmental negotiations. Grave problems would arise if representatives not only of our industries but of all the industries and communities of the Community and other applicants were present in that building at the same time. It is difficult enough as it is to reach total agreement.
The hon. Gentleman said that the agreement which we had reached was approved by the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand. It is important not to commit him in that way. Both he and his Prime Minister have made a number of statements which are on record. I am not entitled to improve or alter them in any way. I quoted what the New Zealand Prime Minister said. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have noted what the New Zealand Prime Minister said about the agreement in general. He reserved his position on the question of price. He would have liked to see a higher minimum price, and that must be understood.

Mr. Braine: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the arrangements for Commonwealth commodities. He suggested that the Community had made considerable concessions in this regard. In that context he did not speak of Commonwealth exports of manufactured goods, which are vital to the developing countries. Is he satisfied that, as a result of entry, there will be no adverse effect upon such exports from such countries? Is he also satisfied that the generalised preference arrangements which the Community is introducing on 1st July will be fair to countries like India?

Mr. Rippon: We do not see any difficulties concerning exports of manufactured goods. On the contrary, I think that the Commonwealth will find great advantages in the associations which are being created. It is worth bearing in mind that whereas members of the Community have been greatly increasing their trade with each other, they have also been expanding their trade with the rest of the world, and notably with the Commonwealth. I think that we want to be part of that expansion, too.
The Community has adopted a certain view about generalised preferences and, as we would wish, has included the developing countries of the Common-

wealth in this offer. I am sure that this will be found to be satisfactory. My hon. Friend will remember that we pressed the Community, and got agreement, to include Hong Kong among the notable beneficiaries of the new proposals.

Mr. Peter Shore: Noting how quickly the right hon. and learned Gentleman's so-called guarantees crumble in the face of questions, is it not clear that from the beginning to the end of the negotiations he and his colleagues have been outwitted, out-generalled and out-faced? Will he confirm that in the proposals which he has accepted for the financial contribution, in the transitional period alone, Britain is to pay across the balance of payments no less than £1,100 million, which is £400 million more than he put forward and assured the House only three months ago was a fair and equitable contribution?

Mr. Rippon: Mr. Rippon rose—

Mr. Shore: The love-in has to stop some time. Finally, is it not clear that on this occasion, as on others, he has reached agreement only by abandoning essential British and Commonwealth interests?

Mr. Rippon: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. He is still thinking in terms of the figures which appeared in the White Paper published by the Government of which he was a member. I assure him that we have carried on these negotiations on exactly the basis—give or take a point or two—which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues initiated in 1967.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm two points? The first is that he referred throughout to the minimum returns for New Zealand and said that therefore, during the period both of transition and thereafter, New Zealand could expect to sell a good deal more than is in the agreement because of the need for more butter which will arise as the Community becomes a net importer of butter. Secondly, will he confirm that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides would very much like someone to go as far as to guarantee their incomes at least until 1977?

Mr. Rippon: I hope that in my previous answer I made it clear that the £1,100 million, which was the upper range of the previous Government's White Paper, is superseded and that the details will be set out in the White Paper.
Certainly these are minimum quantities and minimum prices for New Zealand. That is the floor. If, for example, there is a world shortage of butter, then New Zealand could take advantage of meeting that shortage. There was an occasion in the past year when the Community wanted New Zealand butter. This may continue and they may buy it. We are talking of the minimum arrangements for the United Kingdom market. If, on the contrary, there was a surplus, again New Zealand has the minimum and perhaps a higher price than the world price might be. These are minimum arrangements. We hope that there will be opportunities for New Zealand to sell more than these minimum quantities. This also applies to cheese, which was not included in the proposals made by the last Government in 1967.
The position has changed since then, so it is right to have some guarantee, but it is only a minimum. We envisage that the sale of large quantities of New Zealand cheese will continue in this and other markets. There is also the important agreement that we have reached, whereby the Community has undertaken not to frustrate New Zealand's efforts to find other markets, that is to say, to ensure that where there is a surplus in the Community, we would not seek to sell that surplus in any way that was detrimental to New Zealand's efforts to sell in other markets. That is very important.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: This will have to be the last supplementary question. Mr. Orme.

Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) congratulated him on what he had achieved, many of us on this side of the House believe that the terms that he has brought back are an absolute disaster, and that the love-in that we have seen in the House this afternoon will not exist when they are known to the British people?

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the British people that during the next five years they will have to pay out millions of pounds extra for New Zealand products which now enjoy Commonwealth preference?

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Orme: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House and the country when the benefits are supposed to start to flow? There are to be five years of penalties. When will the benefits begin?

Mr. Rippon: They can start only when we join the Community, and I think that they will start then, and be manifest at a very early date. Wise people have said that when one considers the balance sheet of joining the Community or not, and one looks at the cost, it is important to consider the cost of the lost opportunities if we fail to join. The opportunities that will be afforded to British industry if we join the Community are tremendously important to everyone who works and earns his living in British industry. When we begin to harmonise our policies with those of the Community, we must bear in mind that although there may be some problems of harmonisation of food prices, wages, social benefits and pensions in the community, as a result of the growth that those countries have generated, have risen considerably above our own levels. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman puts to his constituents and others some of the difficulties, he will not forget to emphasise the enormous opportunities.
When we talk about the price of butter, let us not confuse it with our sentiment for New Zealand. If people really are concerned that New Zealand should prosper, and that her farmers should get a fair deal, they must not complain if those farmers get a higher price for what they produce.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY, 12th JULY

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Tom Boardman
Mr. Michael Cocks
Mr. Clinton Davis

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's Silting the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (Procedure)), the Motions relating to Agriculture (S.I., 1971, Nos. 854 to 857, 632 and 473) may be proceeded with for a period of one and a half hours after the proceedings on the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill have been disposed of, or until half-past Eleven o'clock, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Monro.]

Orders of the Day — LICENSING (ABOLITION OF STATE MANAGEMENT) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 2

DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY IN ENGLAND HELD BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PURPOSES OF STATE MANAGEMENT

5.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (9).
I am sure that the fact that this Amendment is on the Order Paper gives enormous pleasure to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) because, in Committee, he moved an Amendment similar to Amendment No. 21 on the Order Paper, and I think that it might be for the convenience of the House if that Amendment to delete subsection (7) of Clause 3 were considered with the one that I have moved.
In Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that Clause 2(9) and Clause 3(7) were unnecessary. We spent some time searching for something on which we could agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am glad that on this matter we have been able to reach agreement with him. In fact, we have gone further than the right hon. Gentleman proposed. He sought to amend only Clause 3. We are seeking to amend that Clause and this one. It gives me great pleasure to carry out the undertaking that I gave in Committee, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. William Ross: I am almost breathless over what has happened. I am sure that there must have been five or six Cabinet meetings before this change was agreed to. If the hon. Gentleman had been putting our case, many more meetings would have been necessary.
Since my translation from that side of the House to this, I have returned to my honorary presidency of the society for the improvement of Statutes and, indeed, for the protection of the traditions of Scotland.

The Amendment seeks to delete the subsection which says:
This section does not apply to Scotland.
As if it ever could The title of the Clause is
Disposal of property in England … 
I do not think that that has much relevance to Scotland. What is more, one sees in subsection (1) a reference to the Act of 1964—I have here a copy of that celebrated Act—and it says that it does not apply to Scotland. How many times must we put up with this kind of thing?

I know that draftsmen are hidebound by tradition and take the view that because something has been done in a certain way it must continue to be done in that way, and not a word must be altered. This provision might have escaped our eye, and we might not have been quite so offended, if the words in the two subsections were similar. Subsection (9) says:
This section does not apply to Scotland",
but Clause 3 (7) says:
This section applies to Scotland only.
In that part of the Bill dealing with Scotland, the relevant subsection says:
This section applies to Scotland only.
If the Government wanted to be consistent, they should have said
This section does not apply to England.

The Clause refers to licensing justices and many other things which bear no relation to Scottish law. It is about time that the breakthrough was made. I congratulate the Government on this momentous decision. It must have been as important and difficult to achieve this Amendment as it was for the Under-Secretary to achieve anything in the North-East of Britain where these negotiations have taken place.

But we should not look a gift horse in the mouth and I will ask my hon. Friends to accept the Amendments in the spirit in which they are offered. I wish that we could have had something more important, but we have not lost hope. There are more important Amendments to come. I am sure that, now that he has been persuaded to look kindly on this suggestion, the hon. Gentleman will be able to do good later on.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: By the length of time he took and the grudging way in

which he accepted the Amendment, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) almost persuaded me to withdraw it. The words in the Bill do no harm. There will probably be other occasions—I can remember a similar one in the past—when I will be chided for not making things absolutely clear in Bills. The right hon. Gentleman now has three rôles in his honorary presidency of the society he mentioned—first to pick out unnecessary words, second to scarify me and, third, to filibuster, even when generosity is offered him.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY IN SCOTLAND HELD BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PURPOSES OF STATE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 5 after 'him', insert 'in the Gretna district'.
It would be not only convenient but helpful, in that it would make my meaning clear, if we discussed at the same time Amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 7, after 'purposes', insert
'and all property held by him in the Cromarty Firth State Management district for the purposes of Part V of the Act of 1959 shall be handed over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board '.
The purpose of this Amendment is to leave alone, to suffer the Government's actions, that part of the State management district in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro)—that is the Gretna area. But in the Cromarty Firth State management area the properties, hotels and public houses should be handed over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
5.15 p.m.
For the purposes of greater accuracy, I produce here a document published by the Board not long ago which has a foreword signed by the Secretary of State. The first question is whether this body should embark on this kind of venture of taking over property which is important


for tourism, and developing and running. Has it the necessary executive expertise?
It is interesting to point out that the Board was established
To enable the Highlands and Islands to play a more effective part in the economic and social development of the nation. To this end, the Board is to concert, promote, assist or undertake measures for the economic or social development of the seven Highland counties.
That includes Ross and Cromarty.
Unprecedented powers were given by the House. I was Secretary of State at the time. There was not one vote against it. This document says:
To help it realise its objectives, the Board has been given finance and a wide range of powers. It has its own grants and loans scheme, the first in the United Kingdom administered by a regional organisation. The power to take equity has been added to the range of … incentives … This allows the Board to enter into partnership with commercial and industrial concerns and to broaden the capital structure of a company … The Board also provides a range of advisory and other services; it is equipped to provide advice on management, accountancy, production, plant layout, marketing and publicity. The Board has positive powers to clear land, erect buildings, carry on businesses and commission investigations and surveys.
So if the Secretary of State wants to get rid of these properties because the State should not be in the liquor trade, in the Cromarty Firth, his solution is easy, obvious and desirable—to hand it over to this Board which has been given a special function, of which a considerable part deals with tourism.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) will confirm that, since its establishment in November, 1965, the Board has created a special place for itself in the Highlands. In Ross-shire in 1965–69, it has sponsored or assisted 259 projects. The Board has invested about £1¼ million and assisted many projects related to tourism and the sort of enterprises that have been badly needed in this part of the country.
We should not forget that hotels have been built with the assistance of the Government. One has been opened in Craignure on the Island of Mull and another will shortly be opened on the Island of Barra. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that another is to be opened on Shetland, but that may be a privately owned one and I do not want to be led astray.
Is it not fitting that the public houses and establishments about which we are speaking should be handed over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board? After all, anybody who buys them will no doubt go to the Board and seek support for them. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has no desire to see the brewers come into this area, although they are already there, as he will know from the lesson we tried to give him in Committee about the findings of the Monopolies Commission.
The brewers own 86 per cent. of the public houses in England and Wales and they are now making inroads into the outlets in Scotland. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I want that to happen, and to protect the position in Scotland in general, and in his area in particular, my solution might be the answer. Have the Government discussed my proposal with the local advisory committee or the Board?
This is a developing area. The Invergordon and Cromarty Firth area was selected during the first war as an experimental growth point, and it was not purely about this part of the country and the problem of drink that Lloyd George said in 1916 that drink was doing more damage to the war effort than all the German submarines put together. People who were alien to the district crowded in. It was an experiment which worked and everybody recognises that it has been a success.
Everything went well until about 1960, when the lairds got busy and suggested that this State business should be handed over to private enterprise—and by that they meant the brewers. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite hope that local people will come into this business, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty fears that eventually because brewers' money will be involved, the brewers will take a more direct interest. My suggestion may be a way out for the Minister and the Government.
We should not forget that of the many people who crowd into this area, some are there for only a time. The aluminium smelter is coming into production and the area is changing. It will become, I hope increasingly, a sort of industrial hub of this part of Scotland. It is all the more important that this experiment


should continue, perhaps in a new form, and by handing it over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board a satisfactory solution may be achieved, because the Board has been commissioned by all parties in this House to carry out this sort of task.
In the short time the Board has been in existence, it has achieved an incredible amount. The number of applications approved for grants and loans from, among other things, manufacturing industry, tourism, catering, transport, fisheries, and agriculture and horticulture totalled 1,500 up to November, 1970, so that another six months' of work must be added to that total. Loans and grants worth about £7½ million have been given.
Since the State is changing the area, it is right that this body, which is doing so much for the area, should be entrusted with the management of these properties and continue with an experiment which has proved successful. Certain hotels and public houses in this vicinity came under my control for a while. It staggers me to think that people are suggesting that they should not continue to be involved with the State. These properties were run by a special department of the Scottish Office, and not many civil ser-cants were involved, and then by the agency. A profit has been made in this area and it is clear that while the Government are prepared to destroy Upper Clyde Shipbuilders because they are making a loss, they are only too ready to hand to their friends an enterprise which is making a profit.
The prices charged in these hotels and public houses bear favourable comparison with the prices in similar establishments in Scotland. Most people in the area were content to leave things as they were. They wanted to see expansion in the locality. When I became Secretary of State I found that the people who had hitherto been holding up expansion were the Treasury, under a Tory Government, because of increasing pressure on the Tories to take the very step that is now being proposed, though in the past the Home Secretary has prevented it from happening.
If my words are not believed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the silent senator, the hon. Member for Dumfries,

let them read the comments of Lord Drumalbyn in another place. They will see that the Scottish Tories are anxious to destroy this form of State management yet in the past Home Secretaries have restrained them. It has been a case of the lairds and the lackeys, and the Tories in Scotland have always been the lairds.
The Secretary of State leads the Scottish Tory Party in this House, but he leads only a few hon. Members. We have 43 of the 71 Scottish seats. It is clear that hon. Gentlemen opposite have no mandate to do anything in Scotland, because the Scottish people have rejected them.
I will not repeat the arguments we adduced on this subject in Committee. My suggestion forms the basis of an entirely new Amendment and I am prepared to leave the position as it stands in the Bill in respect of the Annan and Gretna area. But in the Cromarty Firth State management area, the properties should be handed over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. This would be to the benefit of the Government and the nation, because it would reduce the amount of money that would have to be found in view of the profits that would be made. Where the State, by pouring in money, is improving an area, some of the return should come to the State.
5.30 p.m.
I put this matter seriously and I hope that the Under-Secretary, who suggested that we had started the debate in an atmosphere of agreement, will look at it seriously. I am sure that it would commend itself as a practical proposition to many people in Scotland and to many in the Cromarty area.
I do not know to what extent the Under-Secretary has consulted his right hon. Friend about this matter and what further consultations have taken place in that part of the world. I ask him not to reject the Amendment out of hand. I would not press it if he asks us to withdraw it so that he can consider it again and take action in another place—though he would have a devil of a job in another place, because that is where the enemy of State management is; that is where the beer barons are. We have never regarded them as friends of Scotland.
The Government should seriously consider the Amendment. It is practical and worth while, and we would be putting


the properties into the hands of people who are themselves giving advice to other people about how to run them and people who are being entrusted by the Government to build and to manage hotels in different parts of the country. I know that they have decided to lease certain of the new hotels they are building, but they could do the same thing here, and we would achieve the result desired by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, that of local people managing these properties. What could be better than local people managing them under the ownership of the Highlands and Islands Development Board? This is the way out. I am sure that it would satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and it would certainly satisfy my hon. Friends.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I rise briefly to support the Amendment. It is widely recognised in the Highlands that the Highlands and Islands Development Board's efforts to revitalise the area in which the Cromarty Firth State management district exists have brought considerable benefit and development to that area. The proposal contained in the Amendment seems to introduce no very new departure for the Board, for it has already gone into the tourist business in a major way in constructing new hotels and in assisting other local interests to develop hotels in the Highland counties for which it has the prime responsibility of economic development.
The prospect of these hotels and other licensed premises falling into the hands of those who, perhaps, do not share the local understandings of the problems and potentialities of this area for tourism, and who may be more interested in turning a fast buck, is one which must cause all of us who are concerned about Highland development to pause. It is also recognised that the Highlands and Islands Development Board's grant and loan scheme has done excellent work and has backed many projects which have brought new jobs to the Highlands.
My right hon. Friend has referred to the amount of money spent by the Board and the number of jobs it has provided. But what is also plain is that the scheme is beginning, to a certain extent, to run out of steam and that there is a need for a new departure in the sense that the Board ought to take more of an initiative

in establishing new industries. It has the expertise, the management capabilities, the accountants on its staff and, above all, a capacity to judge the abilities of those who live in the area to take over and run enterprises which the Board is promoting and financing.
Consequently, the Board would be eminently well placed to embark upon the scheme put forward in the Amendment as part of a revitalised drive to fulfil the vision contained in the plans for the development of the Moray Firth area. Those plans have run out of steam, to some extent, since the present Government came to power and the momentum which was provided by the decision of the former Labour Government to set up the aluminium smelter has sadly fallen behind.
It would be a useful demonstration of the Government's commitment to the vision of the Moray Firth development plan, in its widest context, if they were to take very seriously the proposal put forward in the Amendment. The Highlands and Islands Development Board may very well decide that it does not think it fitting to run and manage these hotels and other licensed properties directly. It might choose the method of leasing, which it has in other cases. But the Board would be better placed to make a sounder judgment as to who would run these premises in the best interests of the area than the Secretary of State at the distance of St. Andrew's House. That they be run in the interests of the area must be the prime objective of all concerned about the proposal in the Bill.
The proposals have very little merit. There is some evidence that the existence of these management districts is, perhaps, in a sense, an historical anomaly. But that is not sufficient reason to do away with them if the system is working very well. However, it is not open to me, on the Amendment, to go into the principle which has led the Government to give such an extraordinarily high priority to what is essentially a very minor Measure. When we are faced with crushing unemployment in Scotland and with a record rise in unemployment in June, it is almost inconceivable that we should be debating such a puny Measure.

Mr. John Stokes: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that


this is not an important Measure and that there are more valuable subjects to occupy the time of the House, perhaps I could ask him and his hon. Friends why they took such an unconscionable length of time not only over the Committee stage but also by putting down all these Amendments and arranging for a two-day debate.

Mr. Ross: This is not our Bill; it is yours.

Mr. Maclennan: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's concern about Scotland. I hope that he will make his own representations to his Government and find out from them if they have Measures which they will bring before the House to remedy the situation. They have given no word of them to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the second day of the debate was given out of Opposition time at the behest of the Opposition? If he thinks it is so unimportant, could he explain what their great interest is in this matter?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman cannot slide out of the Government's responsiblities in that way. The Oposition make the best use of the time available to enable issues which are presented by the Government to be adequately debated. The Opposition are faced with frequent attempts by the Government to push through measures which, although they are relatively minor in the framework of the country as a whole, are very important for the areas concerned. This matter is important for the area of Ross and Cromarty.
That does not detract from the importance for the House of recognising the framework in which the Government have thought it right to bring forward the Bill as one of their top legislative priorities for Scotland. No one can argue—I doubt if the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) would have the face to argue—that the Bill will profoundly alter the face of even Ross and Cromarty, but far less of Scotland as a whole.
My argument is that the Government have deprived by stealth the Highlands and Islands Development Board of the power of initiative to change the

economy of the Highlands area for which it has responsibility. There is a growing concern throughout the Highlands that the activities of the Board will be increasingly cramped. I cite as an illustration of this the fact that since the General Election not one new industrial project has come to my constituency, despite the fact that in the previous year no fewer than five new factories were opened.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should not whisper that. He has no idea how lucky he is. In view of what is happening in Scotland as a whole his constituency is lucky not to have lost some ventures.

Mr. Maclennan: I know that in a speech in Scotland my right hon. Friend said that we had lost a factory at Thurso. It is extraordinary that at such a time this should be the Government's measure of development for the Highlands and that since the Government took office this is the only opportunity that the House has had to debate the Highlands in any shape or form, save for an Adjournment debate that I initiated. Is this a measure of the interest that the Government have in the development of the Highlands?

Mr. Ian MacArthur: What will be the amount of saving for the Highlands following the halving of selective employment tax?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not followed my point. We have not been given an opportunity to debate his Government's policy for the area—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Hon. Members must restrain themselves a little. I understand that we are dealing mainly with public houses, not with general economic policy.

Mr. Maclennan: With due deference to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, tourism has considerable importance in the economy, particularly in this area, which has been designated by the Highlands and Islands Development. Board as one of its key development areas. I am anxious to elicit the Government's attitude to the Board's rôle in this matter.
The Board has rightly enjoyed great prestige, but the Government are


embarked on a course which can damage the Board, and which, by a process of stealth, will undermine the Board's influence to help the Highlands, and particularly this area. It is no secret that in this area there are interests which have from the start sought to destroy the Board. It is very much in the hope that the Under-Secretary will take this opportunity of demonstrating that these fears for the future of the Board are unjustified that I commend the Amendment to the Government.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am, as hon. Members opposite know, a man of immense moderation. When I was, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in charge of this Department in Scotland and I visited the areas, the headline the next day was—
Pub tour on a quarter of a pint".
This proves my measure of moderation, but even my moderation quails before that of my right hon. Friend who, to try to get some glimmer of response from the Government, has halved what our demands should be and has tackled only the question of the Cromarty area and left Gretna to some of the wolves represented by hon. Members opposite. So this is a very modest demand that we make.
I have refrained from taking part in these debates till now, but I am impelled to enter this debate. Above all, the Scottish section of this Government have got themselves into an appalling fix. One of the great problems which has been posed by this most meretricous of Bills, was the involvement of the Tory Party with the brewers. As the Tory Party is financed to such an extent by the brewers, and considering that as its first piece of legislation it brings in a Measure to flog State property to the brewers, and as there is no security written into the Bill as to how the assets are to be disposed of, we are right to be suspicious.
In Scotland we have even more reason to be suspicious. There is a story about bottles flying at a football match and someone ducking as the bottles come over. His companion says "Do not worry. It will not hit you unless your name is on the bottle". "That is just a trouble", he said," he said; "My name is McEwan".
The Chairman of the Scottish Tory Party is not only "McEwan" but, as the Government Whip has just pointed out, his name is also "Younger"—William McEwan Younger. There is beer dripping from every syllable.
An Amendment which the Government should have accepted clearly set out the method by which these assets should be disposed of. If that had been written into the Bill suspicion would have been removed, but every time we raise this point hon. Members opposite say that they are above suspicion. But they never take any action to deal with that suspicion. The opportunity was given last night in an Amendment setting out one method of disposing of the suspicion.
We are presented with a blank cheque, and it is always very foolish to accept a blank cheque. When it is a blank cheque from the Tory Party it is careless not to look at it twice. And when it is a blank cheque from the Tory Party in relation to brewers it is positively criminal not to do so.
The Government have missed their opportunity. The Under-Secretary said frankly in Committee:
The simple point is whether we shall achieve in our method of sale the degree of impartiality and professional expertise we require.
Good. But he also said:
Commercial considerations are likely to arise no matter how the properties are sold."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th May, 1971; c. 418.]
Of course commercial considerations arise, but the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to write in a method so that my suspicion, which 5 million people in Scotland share, can be removed.
The Amendment is a way out for one part of the State management areas, though not the Gretna district. I only regret that we do not have the same kind of development mechanism there as we have with the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The Board is the most advanced piece of planning mechanism this country has ever developed. Far from its being over-used, the trouble is that, if anything, we under-used it while we were in power. We tend to be moderate in government, unlike the Right-wing barbarians opposite. I mean by "barbarians" a group of people—

Mr. MacArthur: I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that his party when in government had abused the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I assume that he means they did so by imposing on the Highlands selective employment tax, which took far more out of them than the Board was ever able to put in.

Mr. Buchan: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to get back on to the one subject that he has talked about for the past 12 months. I thought that he was rising to object to what I said about the Right-wing barbarians. I was going on to define "barbarians" as people who assist in the destruction of civilisation, as in the Government's destruction of welfare milk, the introduction of museum charges and so on. In the one area where we have developed a planning mechanism with real powers we are beginning to see a waste of effort, as the drive and impetus that came with the creation of the Board goes out of the Highlands and Islands. I said not that we had abused the Board but that we had under-used it. We should have been a great deal tougher in using it. I hope that the next time we are in power we shall take a leaf from the Conservative Party's book and express some of our ideas more forcefully and use the full powers we have given to the Board.
We want to deal with some of the barons, whether beer or land barons. A recent Fabian pamphlet "Acreocracy" published in Scotland tells of the ownership of the huge estates. The Duke of Argyll has 140,000 acres in the County of Perth. The huge acreage in Scotland owned by individuals is twice the size of the four cities of Scotland. The connection between the beer and land barons is close. Since the power of land possession is holding up so much development in the Highland areas, it is right that we should be moving the Board towards dealing with that.
Here we are making a modest, moderate demand. We say that the mechanism exists which can remove suspicion from the Government, a mechanism whereby public property can be transferred into an existing board, established to develop the well being and the interests of the people in the community.
We should not be arguing about handing the scheme over to private buyers but arguing with the Treasury to get the right amount of public expenditure into the State management district to develop it properly in the interests of tourism. Ross and Cromarty is one of the developing areas in the Highlands. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) should remember that that is because of the policies of the last Government, now destroyed by the policy of his own party.
With the expected increase in population, and the resulting rich pickings, the brewers come along, and that is wrong. As even Lloyd-George said, it is not right that values which are increased because of social action should be allowed to flow into private pockets. When potential value of hotels and establishments of that kind is increasing because of public action and expenditure from the pockets of ordinary people, it is not right that just at that moment of development the potential profit should be transferred to the greedy hands of the brewers. In view of the great Calvinist background of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I hope that he will see the matter as an engagement of conscience, as it is, and support us on the side of the angels.
I have been disturbed by the Government's failure to rid themselves of the charge of corruption, the suspicion that I and others have on this matter. Over the past 12 months they have turned the Palace of Westminster into a kind of oriental bazaar in which an auction has been going on—B.E.A., North Sea gas and even education. The Secretary of State for Education has suggested that vending machines for soft drinks should be put in schools in place of welfare milk, an astonishing concept. There is also the question of Thomas Cook, an undertaking that is related to the Bill, because Thomas Cook started in business by organising temperance outings. The Government had their beady eyes on Thomas Cook, and now they have them on beer. We wonder why. They say that it has nothing to do with the involvement of the brewers. If it has nothing to do with the funds they obtained for their General Election campaign from the Youngers and others, it has to do with either political ideology or political nepotism. That is why they protest so much. They do not know the difference between political nepotism and political ideology.


Even worse, I have a feeling that political nepotism is their political ideology. Hence the shoddiness of the proposal before us.
The Government can get away from all the charges by understanding that we have a public body free of such suspicions, pledged to the development and welfare of the people of the Highland areas. Let them take their courage in both hands and tell the Treasury, "We are not flogging off these pubs to help your accounts. We want more money from you to develop the scheme in the interests of tourism and the people of Scotland", including the constituents of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Hamish Gray: I was very interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He devoted a lot of it to the activities and achievements of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I support what he said. I have always been a supporter of the Board, and I was delighted when it was created. From its rather chequered career in its early days. I watched it develop into a viable Board which has created industry in the Highlands and has been very acceptable to the vast majority of people there. It has had its critics, and from time to time its critics have been justified.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ross: Not all its critics.

Mr. Gray: The critics I have in mind have been constructive and the board, which, by and large, has done a very good job, has benefited from their criticisms.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that the Board has lost its steam. I think it is consolidating and I am sure that in the years ahead, with pressure from hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman and myself, we shall see it achieve even greater things. I do not agree with him in his suggestion that the hotels at present controlled by the State management district in Ross and Cromarty should be transferred to the Board. The Board has, I agree, built two hotels and is in process of building a third. It is going to lease those hotels to private management.
I am much more anxious to see the hotels at present run by State manage-

ment in my constituency run and owned by local individuals so that local participation will to the utmost be represented in these transactions. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock that I do not wish the brewers to go into my constituency in large numbers. I am sure that they will not, for the simple reason that, with one possible exception in my constituency, I doubt whether any of these hotels has the kind of turnover which would attract the brewers.

Mr. Buchan: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. But how will he ensure that these hotels go to local people, or to the existing tenants? The Government have flatly refused to allow such guarantees to be written in. We have been given an assurance but there is nothing to that effect in the Bill.

Mr. Gray: I am satisfied that the board can play a vital part in this because a great many of these hotels, during the years they have been controlled by Statement management, have not been added to in the form of the provision of considerable advantages as they might have been. One of the powers of the Board is to provide finance where vital accommodation for tourism is being built and where additional jobs are being created. I feel that the Board will play a useful part in that way.
It was suggested that if the hotels were handed over to the Board the Government would get the rentals which would be charged. I am sure that in the sale of these hotels to private individuals a great many of them will be purchased by families and family concerns and that the Government will get a steady remuneration through the usual taxation system.
I am not disagreeing with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock in this but I am sure it would not be his wish to mislead us in his reference to the 259 projects to the extent of £1¼ million. It should be pointed out that not all these projects were in the State management area.

Mr. Ross: I did not say so.

Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman gave that impression.

Mr. Ross: I read directly from a report. It referred to Ross-shire. I meant Ross-shire. When I say Ross-shire, and it is heard as Ross-shire, I do not mean Cromarty.

Mr. Gray: The constituency is known as Ross and Cromarty, and the right hon. hon. Gentleman knows, in the context in which we are talking, that the impression given was that the State management area covered the two. The State management area covers only a fraction of my constituency.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland talked about the brewers as well. All the hon. Members opposite who are taking part talk about the brewers from time to time. When development took place in Caithness and Sutherland at Dounreay, there was no immediate grab by the brewers for all the hotels nearby. The situation in Ross and Cromarty, with the development at Invergordon, is similar. It is one of my greatest regrets that the British Aluminium smelter, which I applaud, does not in itself create a great deal of ancillary industry. That is one of the sad things about it. It is not the type of industry that in itself creates a lot of ancillary industry. I wish it were. I wish there would be a great deal more development there. I am certain that there will be as time goes on. I think it will come from different sources.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland suggested that the Bill would not change the face of Ross and Cromarty. I agree. It is a pity that he did not attend some of our Committee meetings when the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) gave some of his performances which would have been more acceptable at the London Palladium than in Committee. The hon. Gentleman nearly sang to us on one occasion. We were all relieved when he only read out his rhyming couplets instead of singing them. I believe that this will not change the face of Ross and Cromarty, but that it will merely enable local people to participate in the hotel industry, I hope with the assistance of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman expresses a hope and I go along with it.

But there is nothing in the Bill and nothing in anything that the Government have said to give any assurance that local people will benefit in the way he wishes.

Mr. Gray: I hope that not only will local people benefit in the way I wish but that even some of the people who are at present employed in the State management district will benefit by becoming proprietors of some of the small hotels.
I have particular respect for the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan). He has a persuasive manner and is so sincere that I am sure we all attach a deal of importance to what he says. But it would be a mistake if the Government were to accept this Amendment, because I believe that greater benefits to my constituency will be achieved by private enterprise taking over these houses.

Mr. William Hamilton: I was amazed when I saw the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—not by the fact that it had been put down but by its extreme modesty. But that is typical of him. It is precisely because it is so modest that the Government would have nothing to lose by accepting the Amendment.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) to talk about private individuals in his constituency buying the pubs. Of course, there is the small matter of finance. It is true—and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) may not be aware of this—that they are going to get first option to buy them. But, of course, if the business in some of these rural pubs is small, as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty indicated, there might not be sufficient attraction to the private individuals concerned and they might not have the cash anyway. Nor might they have the means to get it from whatever source might be available.
Even if that were the assumption there would be no denying that the tourist potential in the area is considerable and ought to be developed to the maximum. This must involve spending considerable amounts of money. The individuals who the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty hopes may take possession of these pubs will simply not have the available capital.


He might say that they could apply to the Highlands and Islands Development Board for it because that is what it is there for. As he has rightly said, the board has built hotels, and it is in the process of building another. It has the expertise, the staff, the personnel and the experience. Furthermore it has a deep commitment to developing the full potential of the Highlands.
When they introduced this Bill the Government put forward two propositions. The first was that the State should get out of the liquor business. This is their ideology; it need not necessarily be accepted by us, and I hope we shall have a close look at this before the next General Election. Meanwhile the principle of this has been accepted and it is not infringed by the Amendment. It is true that the Highlands and Islands Development Board gets cash from the Treasury. To that extent the Government can say that it is a State body engaged in the liquor trade. It would however, be a minute part of its business.
That was the first proposition. The second proposition was never explicitly stated, but we know the Government's antipathy towards public enterprise, towards nationalisation except when a private industry such as Rolls-Royce crashes. Then they nationalise. It seems a curious contradiction of principle. However, we can expect this from the present Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock reminded hon. Gentlemen opposite about their misgivings at the time that the Highland and Islands Board was proposed, including their description of it as being "pure Marxism". If there is one place where pure Marxism would be very relevant it is the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The nationalisation of land would be more readily accepted in the Highlands of Scotland than anywhere else in Britain. The sooner it happens the better.
The Board has powers of compulsory acquisition, and the Government have not sought to limit those powers or curb the activities of the Board. The former Secretary of State for Scotland, who now hovers around somewhere doing something or other in the Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble)—the very man who described this as "Marxism"—was anxious that his constituency should be within the Board's area.
6.15 p.m.
No Scottish Member would deny that the board has breathed life into the Highlands, given it hope such as has never existed for centuries. All that we say in this modest Amendment is that it should be given the chance to expand its activities a little.
I remember that in Committee, when I had made an erudite speech on the original gravity of beer and its alcohol content and compared the quality of the Carlisle beer with the rubbish that is produced by the contributors to the Tory Party, the hon. Gentleman said that he wished he could get Carlisle beer in Ross and Cromarty. That is not allowed, but if this proposition were accepted the board could build its own brewery in the area and get experts from Carlisle to advise on how to produce a far better quality beer than Youngers, Watney Mann, Charrington and all the others who draw their beers from the rivers of this country. Furthermore, the beer could be produced much more cheaply.

Mr. Gray: May I put the record straight about that last statement by the hon. Member. I did not say what he has suggested. I said that because of transport costs we did not get Carlisle beer in Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Hamilton: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was not deliberately misquoting him; my memory was at fault. I think he would agree that after we had explained the high quality of the beer in Carlisle and its low price compared with the rubbish foisted on the public elsewhere he said that he wished he could get Carlisle beer in his area. If the Board built a brewery in his area he would have a brand-new aluminium smelter, with a great employment potential and a brand-new brewery which employs mostly men. This is what he wants in his area, and it would be an election winner for him.
Perhaps I should not be giving the hon. Member this advice but I am always willing to be helpful. If he goes to his constituency and tells them about this helpful idea he has had from the hon. Member for Fife, West about establishing new industries in Ross and Cromarty, employing men, and at the same time providing them with cheaper and better beer than is provided by the contributors to the Tory Party, he might at least save


his seat, which he will not do at the next election as things look at present.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: He might save his deposit.

Mr. Hamilton: There is great merit in this Amendment, and I would strongly advise the hon. Member, in his own interests, to vote with us. I understand that there were petitions in the pubs and hotels in this area when the Government proposed the introduction of this Bill and that many signatures were placed on those petitions. I have a great respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that he misled the Committee, but he said he had received only two letters on this subject pro or con. Hundreds of people signed these petitions in favour of the retention of the State system. Although the Government did not have a mandate for this, we have accepted the principle that State management should go. We are not infringing that principle in the Amendment, but we are saying that there is an instrument already available with the necessary expertise and finance to do the job.
The junior Minister at the Home Office who has been handling the Bill with great merit and tolerance but with considerable distaste—he has done reasonably well the job for which he is inadequately paid—argued when we were seeking to set up a liquor trust to do this job that we were taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There may be something in that argument. Some nut it is, but it is a nut that the brewers are anxious to get their greedy claws on. He cannot use that argument about this Amendment.
We are talking about an area with an unemployment rate far worse than even the worst areas in Scotland, and that is saying something. I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland has his diary filled with engagements for official closures of factories. This will be his full-time employment in the next year or two. That is a very strong argument for accepting the Amendment. It is not much to ask; it is very modest. We have been co-operative and have accepted the principle of the Bill, with reluctance, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond in the spirit in which the Amendment has been moved and debated.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The debate on the Amendment has brought out all the old political motives, the same old political claptrap which we have heard in debates on almost every Amendment in Committee and on Report. It must have given great pleasure to the hon. Members for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to express their desire for the nationalisation of almost every activity in the Highlands. The debate has shown them up in their true colours, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and his constituents will have taken full note of. The surest way for my hon. Friend to lose his seat at the next election would be for him to take the advice of the hon. Member for Fife, West. He does not require me to give him that advice because I know he has the common sense not to listen to what has been said.
I join in the tribute paid to the Highland and Islands Development Board by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and by other hon. Members. The Board is doing a good job in the Highlands; it deserves our support, and it is getting our support. I take exception to what was said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland when he criticised the support which we give to the Board. We are supporting the board and are anxious to see it successful in the policies which it is introducing into the Highlands. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also criticised what happened in Committee. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) had read what I said. He did not quite quote it all, but he was at least accurate in his source of information. I exhort the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland to read what I said about the disposal of assets and our hope that where people locally want to buy, particularly tenants, the facilities will be available for them.
There are tenants of properties other than licensed properties, and we want to give local people the opportunity to purchase. My hon. and learned Friend yesterday spoke of the financial facilities available to managers and others who put in offers and of the opportunities which will be available for them to do so. We are, therefore, concerned that local people should have these opportunities, and this


is one point which we shall be taking up in relation to disposal.

Mr. Buchan: I am glad the hon. Gentleman recognised that I quoted him correctly, but he must not leave the suggestion with the House that I approve of that which I quoted. I was opposing that which I quoted. The whole grave-men of the case is that, despite what appears in HANSARD, which no longer matters if the Bill becomes an Act, not one single action has been taken, not a single Clause or Schedule has been introduced, to safeguard the position. Assurances from the Conservative Party are not enough.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I take the point of the hon. Gentleman that by quoting my speech he was not endorsing it. I did not intend to imply that he was. He acknowledged what I said in Committee, whereas some of his right hon. and hon. Friends implied that some of the things that had been said had not been said.
We debated fully last night the whole question of the methods of disposal, and I do not want to return to these wider issues. I will deal with the detailed question whether it would be right or wrong to hand over these assets to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock is right in saying that the Board is much concerned with hotel development within this area. He quoted from one publication of the Board, but a more interesting publication to quote is the Board's fourth report in 1969. The Board did a survey of tourist needs in the Highlands and pointed to the need for much greater provision of hotel and boarding house accommodation. The report suggested a programme which the board hoped to follow to meet the needs of tourism in the Highlands. Part of this programme will be available to those who purchase hotels in the Cromarty State management area. The Board gives help to existing hotels and boarding houses which wish to extend, and in future these arrangements will cover equally the hotels that are currently owned by the State Management. The Board also suggested ways of bringing together individuals and bodies to help in the construction and development of hotels. I freely admit the interest of the Board in this.
My colleagues in Government and I feel strongly that the taking over and running of this business is not a function of the State, whether the State is in the guise of the Home Office, the Scottish Home and Health Department or the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and this goes right back to our fundamental debate on the Bill. We believe that it is not the State's function to carry on the business of hotels and public houses and that this is properly a function of private enterprise.
6.30 p.m.
The main function of the Highlands and Islands Development Board is that of development, and the resources of the Board for development purposes will be available to those who succeed the Secretary of State in operating these premises in the State management districts. The idea that the Board could take over and run these premises does not fall directly speaking within the development purposes of the Board, though I appreciate that in a legal and technical sense the Board would have power to do so.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister saying that, although the Board has the capacity to run businesses and this power is written into the legislation, the present Government will not allow the Board to do so, or is he saying that the Government do not intend to allow it to run this particular type of business?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The board has the legal capacity to do so, but we believe that private enterprise should be given the opportunity to run those sectors which are right for private enterprise. This is where we differ in philosophy from the Labour Party. We must agree to differ on this matter since it is not our intention to encourage State operation in these activities.
The Highlands and Islands Development Board in its 1969 programme expressed the wish to provide new hotels in particular areas in the West and in the Islands, where it believed facilities were needed and where other organisations and agencies were not meeting these needs. The board provided the first hotel under this scheme at Craignure on the Island of Mull, and there is another scheme under consideration, which is in its planning stage, on the Island of Barr. The Board


has shown no sign of eagerness to run the hotels. The running of State management premises can be left to private enterprise, without involvement by the Board except where there is an appropriate development project. What reason can there be for the Board becoming directly involved in trading? The board has seen no reason so far for doing so, and we see no reason for it to engage in these activities. The right hon. Gentleman has not made out a case for saying that the Secretary of State should approve of the Board going in for these particular activities.
The point was made that the Board might take over these hotels and then lease them out. This again raises a matter of principle. I see no reason for the Board investing in these assets any more than that the Secretary of State should do so. Since the return on capital in the State management districts is not attractive to the State, I do not see that it would be any more attractive to the Board, and it would no doubt consider whether better use could be made of its capital. Therefore, on both these grounds I would ask the House to reject the Amendment.
I was also asked about consultation with local advisory committees and with the Board. We have not asked for the Board's views on this Amendment. We believe that in principle this is not a function of the Board and to that extent have not discussed it with it.

Mr. Buchan: Disgraceful.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We are conscious of the Board's own desire not to get involved in running this business.

Mr. William Hamilton: How does the hon. Gentleman know that?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Because the board has let out to private enterprise the one hotel built by the Board which private enterprise is operating on the Board's behalf. We are in close touch with the board about the State management district and my officials are keeping the Board informed of our proposals about selling off the assets in the State management area.

Mr. Buchan: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to say that he was not even going to consult the Board about a matter which affects part of the economy of the Highlands, but he is say-

ing that he did not put this specific Amendment to the Board. Why has he not done so? This matter affects the Highlands, it is now being debated in Parliament and should have been discussed with the Board.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We are in consultation with the Board and, although we did not discuss this specific Amendment, the Board has not expressed to us any wish to take over these assets.
I repeat the statement I made in Committee, that we are in consultation with the local advisory committees. The function of these committees relates to the day-to-day running of State management districts, and their function does not involve general principles of policy. To that extent we have not consulted local advisory committees on these basic matters of policy or on this Amendment. We have put our proposals to these committees and have asked for their comments. I can confirm that that has been done and that they are aware of our proposals.
I apologise for answering this debate at some length, but it raises a matter of principle. I am at one with right hon. and hon. Members opposite in wishing to see the development of tourism in the Highlands. However, we believe that this should be done in the way it has been done in the Ross and Cromarty area, which is ready and willing to take advantage of the opportunity given to it by the Government in this Bill. In these circumstances I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I cannot say that I am disappointed. The hon. Gentleman's reply was more or less what I expected.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That does not surprise me in the least. The right hon. Gentleman always prefaces his remarks by saying that he has got what he expected.

Mr. Ross: It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had said that before concluding his speech, than interrupting mine before I had time to get beyond the first sentence.
The hon. Gentleman made one staggering remark when he said that he did not think there was any reason to consult the Highlands and Islands Development Board about this Amendment. Having


said that, he back-tracked immediately and said that his officials were in touch with the Board about the disposal of these assets. I thank heaven that they are in touch with someone. Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) told us how a pledge had been given that the Carlisle workers and managers would be kept up to date with what was going on, and that nothing had been done.

Mr. Ron Lewis: They ratted.

Mr. Ross: I prefer not to use that expression. My hon. Friend may rely on me to make my own speech and put my own emphasis on it.
The Under-Secretary said that there was a fundamental and basic objection to the Amendment since on no account should the State get mixed up in the liquor trade. It took him a while to discover that. There have been quite a few Tory Governments since 1916. It was not the Labour Party which set up the State management scheme, after all. It was the war time coalition Government, when Lloyd George was Home Secretary. The matter was reconsidered in 1921, with the Tories dominant, and again it was continued. We had any number of Tory Governments before the war, and we had 13 years of them after the war. But, suddenly, the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office discovers that it is basic and fundamental that nothing connected with the State should sell any commodity for profit.
If that is so, all the electricity boards had better stop selling cookers, fridges, and the rest of it. The Scottish Transport Group had better start getting rid of its hotels. It was all very well for these hotels to be run by McBrayne's, but as soon as the company became part of the Scottish Transport Group, philosophically and basically it has no right to do so. Then there are British Railways. Apparently they have no right to run hotels. Gleneagles and Turnberry are a tribute to their efficiency. They are the best hotels in Scotland. However, the State should not be involved in them.
The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The Government are trying to decorate with dogma a decision which was taken, I am sure against the good

judgment of the Home Secretary, to commit this dastardly deed in respect of State management. It will not make a bit of difference, and the hon. Gentleman knows it, in respect of any major aspect of policy. But it will please a lot of Tories in Scotland when the great triumph of the Secretary of State is proclaimed to a Tory Conference: "We got rid of State management". Never mind about U.C.S. and the fact that in the summer, unprecedented in the month of June, unemployment is now running at 121,647. We know that it will go up again in July when youngsters leave school. On present trends, unemployment will be over 150,000 in February of next year. But, never mind; we have dealt with a great problem. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should be ashamed of themselves.
I will not go on very much further. We went on about it before. The hon. Gentleman is devoid of any justification for what he is doing. We tried to give him a way out in the shape of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It has the power and the know how, and it could decide whether to deal directly or on the basis of leaving the premises to managers or tenants. But, no; everything must be uniform. There is a town in England—I believe that it is Hull—which has its own telephone system. I suppose that is next on the list. There are some great levellers on the benches opposite who say that we must not have anything different. It used to be a matter for pride that there were differences and eccentricities about the way we did things in different parts of the country.
6.45 p.m.
The next thing that we shall discover is that we have to make changes in the Bill where certain provisions apply only to England and Wales and where others apply only to Scotland. Those will have to be made uniform, too. The Home Secretary ought to look at the Bill to see what Amendments he authorised after lengthy Cabinet meetings to the effect that certain parts shall not apply to Scotland. It is ridiculous that this great Government should bring this Measure forward so early in their lives.
The hon. Gentleman made some reference to our giving up a Supply Day. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us


where he got his information. It is not true.

Mr. James Hamilton: No, it is untrue.

Mr. Buchan: That is the same thing.

Mr. Ross: We curtailed our remarks in Committee because the hon. Gentleman was becoming concerned about the length of time that the Committee's consideration was taking. We complied with his request, and some of the Amendments that we are discussing today should have been discussed in Committee. The Government agreed to give additional time for the Report stage. However, it is not additional or extra time; it is adequate time for the discussion of these problems.
We are dealing with property to the value of nearly £5 million which is to be disposed of in a way which has created certain suspicions among sections of the community. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can wriggle as much as they like. When we know that the Chairman of the Tory

Division No. 393.]
AYES
[6.49 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Allen, Scholefield
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hunter, Adam


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Driberg, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Armstrong, Ernest
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Ashton, Joe
Dunnett, Jack
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Atkinson, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
John, Brynmor


Bennett, James, (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ellis, Tom
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Evans, Fred
Kerr, Russell


Booth, Albert
Faulds, Andrew
Kinnock, Neil


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lamond, James


Bradley, Tom
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Latham, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lawson, George


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Forrester, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Leonard, Dick


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lestor, Miss Joan


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Garrett, W. E.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carmichael, Neil
Ginsburg, David
Lomas, Kenneth


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Golding, John
Loughlin, Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gourlay, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McBride, Neil


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McCartney, Hugh


Cohen, Stanley
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McElhone, Frank


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Conlan, Bernard
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maclennan, Robert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hamling, William
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cronin, John
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marks, Kenneth


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Davidson, Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mendelson, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hooson, Emlyn
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Deakins, Eric
Horam, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Delargy, H. J.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Party in Scotland is Sir William McEwan Younger and that over the three years of the run-up to the General Election, as chairman of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, he gave £59,000 to the Tory Party, it is no wonder that there is a measure of suspicion about this Bill.

I wish that I had as much faith as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) in the Government's pledges. He has no real reassurance about who will get the licensed premises in the Cromarty-Firth area, and I am sure that he is sufficiently intelligent to know it. There is no guarantee that any individual getting them with the backing of a brewer will not be part of another brewing empire in a very few years.

We gave the Government a way out of this difficulty. They have not taken it, and I trust that we shall defeat them in the Division lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 210.

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roper, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Rose, Paul B.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wallace, George


O'Halloran, Michael
Sandelson, Neville
Watkins, David


O'Malley, Brian
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Weitzman, David


Oram, Bert
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Orme, Stanley
Sillars, James
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Palmer, Arthur
Silverman, Julius
Whitehead, Phillip


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Pavitt, Laurie
Small, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pendry, Tom
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pentland, Norman
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Perry, Ernest G.
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Woof, Robert


Probert, Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)



Rankin, John
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Torney, Tom
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. James Hamilton.


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Varley, Eric G.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Astor, John
Cower, Raymond
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger


Awdry, Daniel
Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Green, Alan
Money, Ernle


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gummer, Selwyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bell, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David


Benyon, W.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Murton, Oscar


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Biggs-Daviton, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Neave, Airey


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Havers, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John


Boscawen, Robert
Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Bossom, Sir Clive
Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bowden, Andrew
Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bray, Ronald
Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holt, Miss Mary
Peel, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Percival, Ian


Bryan, Paul
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pounder, Rafton


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chapman, Sydney
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Clegg, Walter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cookie, Robert
Kilfedder, James
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Coombs, Derek
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cormack, Patrick
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Costain, A. P
Kinsey, J, R,
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crouch, David
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Curran, Charles
Lambton, Antony
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott, Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (So'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dixon, Piers
Longden, Gilbert
Simeons, Charles


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dykes, Hugh
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, R. A.
Spence, John


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McLaren, Martin
Sproat, lain


Eyre, Reginald
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sutcliffe, John


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Tapsell, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fowler, Norman
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Gardner, Edward
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman

Thatcher, Bt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wall, Patrick
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Trew, Peter
Waiters, Dennis
Woodnutt, Mark


Tugendhat, Christopher
Ward, Dame Irene
Younger, Hn. George


Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Warren, Kenneth



van Straubenzee, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Jasper More and


Vickers, Dame Joan
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Waddington, David

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 3, line 39, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 5

REPEAL OF PART V OF ACT OF 1964 AND PART V OF ACT OF 1959

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 4, line 1, leave out:
'When it appears to the Secretary of State that '.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I think it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments: No. 24, in page 4, line 2, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.
No. 25, in page 4, line 3, leave out 'as the case may be'.
No. 26, in page 4, line 4, leave out from 'Act' to end of subsection and insert:
'shall remain in force until repealed by an order made by the Secretary of State and approved by both Houses of Parliament '.
No. 27, in page 4, line 11, at end insert:
(3) An order made under this section shall be subject to approval by both houses of Parliament.

Mr. Ross: That will be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
This group of Amendments deal with Clause 5. The point to note is that, although we are abolishing straight away the monopoly powers of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland over the State management districts of Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty Firth, the right of those Ministers to continue to supply goes on until such time as it is eventually repealed by order.
These are important powers which it is suggested should continue for a year. I think they should continue for much longer. The importance of the powers is that the Secretary of State could expand his business during this time. It may be that in the circumstances it is

necessary to do that, but it is essential that the repeal of legislation as important as this should not be done quietly. It ought to be done after debate in the House.
The intention of the Amendment is to make the Clause much more positive by taking away from the Secretary of State for Scotland the power to do something at will. Instead the change being made quietly by means of a Statutory Instrument which no one will hear about, we say that if he wants to amend the legislation he should adopt the affirmative Resolution procedure and debate the matter in the House.

7.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the affirmative Resolution procedure is adopted to wind up the remaining powers of the Secretary of State after schemes in the State management areas have ceased to trade. The monopoly powers of the Secretary of State are removed when the Bill receives the Royal Assent. The Clause provides that when the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have completed the disposal of the assets, they should then, by Statutory Instrument, be able to repeal their powers to trade in these areas.
I cannot see the purpose of requiring that that action should be taken by Order and be subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. The only effect of the Amendment would be that, although the assets of the State management schemes had been sold, and although the Secretary of State no longer had power to license premises, he could not wind up his legislative powers without coming back to the House to debate the Order to do that. The Amendment would achieve nothing. It would serve no useful purpose, and would merely retain on the Statute Book provisions which would be dead wood. I therefore invite the House to reject the Amendment.
The purpose of Amendments No. 24 and 25 is to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland should not make an Order removing his powers after he has disposed of all the premises in the Scottish areas unless at the same time an Order is made by the Home Secretary for the Carlisle area. It seems to me that no useful purpose would be served by requiring both Orders to be made at the same time.
Once the assets have been disposed of, and no further trading is being carried

Division No. 394.]
AYES
[7.3 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. c (S'hampton, Itchen)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Molloy, William


Alien, Scholefield
Ginsburg, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
O'Malley, Brian


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Oram, Bert


Bidwell, Sydney
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Orme, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Paget, R. T.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Pavitt, Laurie


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hattersley, Roy
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Perry, Ernest G.


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hooson, Emlyn
Probert, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Horam, John
Rankin, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roper, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Rose, Paul B.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Sandelson, Neville


Cohen, Stanley
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Sillars, James


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
John-, Brynmor
Silverman, Julius


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Skinner, Dennis


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Small, William


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kaufman, Gerald
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kinnock, Nell
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Latham, Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Tinn, James


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Torney, Tom


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan
Tuck, Raphael


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Varley, Eric G.


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wainwright, Edwin


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Wallace, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Watkins, David


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Weitzman, David


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Wellbeloved, James


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCartney, Hugh
White, James (Gasgow, Pollok)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Whitehead, Phillip


Ellis, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Whitlock, William


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Woof, Robert


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendeison, John



Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M, S.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Calpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. John Golding.

on by the Secretaries of State in the areas for which they have a responsibility, it seems right that they should have the power, by Statutory Instrument, to repeal the existing provisions of the 1964 or 1959 Acts. I therefore invite the House to reject these Amendments also.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 204.

NOES


Adley, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Osborn, John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Astor, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peel, John


Awdry, Daniel
Haselhurst, Alan
Percival, Ian


Baker, W, H. K. (Banff)
Havers, Michael
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Batsford, Brian
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Bell, Ronald
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Benyon, W.
Holland, Philip
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Holt, Miss Mary
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Raison, Timothy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Body, Richard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Redmond, Robert


Boscawen, Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hunt, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Bowden, Andrew
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bray, Ronald
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rost, Peter


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bryan, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Kilfedder, James
Scott, Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Burden, F. A.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shulton, William (Clapham)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Simeons, Charles


Carlisle, Mark
Kinsey, J. R.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington


Churchill, W. S.
Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lambton, Antony
Spence, John


Clegg, Walter
Lane, David
Sproat, lain


Cooke, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stanbrook, Ivor


Coombs, Derek
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M.


Cormack, Patrick
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sutcliffe, John


Costain, A. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Tapsell, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Loveridge, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crouch, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M,(G'gow, Cathcart)


Crowder, F. P.
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Curran, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Tebbit, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Trew, Peter


Dixon, Piers
Maginnis, John E.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Marten, Neil
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mather, Carol
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dykes, Hugh
Maude, Angus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Vickers, Dame Joan


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Waddington, David


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fell, Anthony
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Wall, Patrick


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Moate, Roger
Ward, Dame Irene


Fidler, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Weatherill, Bernard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Money, Ernle
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fowler, Norman
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Hector
Wiggin, Jerry


Fry, Peter
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gardner, Edward
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhew, Victor
Mudd, David
Younger, Hn. George


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar



Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, Alan
Nott, John
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Gummer, Selwyn
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Gurden, Harold
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a protracted Committee stage and a fairly long Report stage, and no one could suggest that the Bill's details have not been fully argued. But we have

heard so much extravagant language and so many utterly unfounded imputations from hon. Members opposite that I should like to remind the House what the Bill does and the reasons for it.
It brings to an end State management of the liquor trade which has operated in


three small areas—Carlisle, Gretna and the Cromarty Firth area—in two stages. First, on the date of the Royal Assent, Clause 1 abolishes the monopoly position of the Secretary of State in those areas; second, Clause 2 requires the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland to dispose of their properties in those areas on such terms as appear to them expedient in the public interest. After that, the provisions of the 1959 and 1964 Acts may be repealed by Statutory Instrument.
The Bill simply ends what started as an experiment over 50 years ago, aimed at implementing the concern about drunkenness which was said to exist in those areas. It has been allowed to continue despite the fact that the reason for it has long passed.
In view of the wild accusations which have been made, I should like to go over the reasons which the Home Secretary gave on Second Reading for the Government's decision to legislate. First, we believe that the continuance of the State's monopoly is a restriction on freedom of choice and on the freedom of individuals to apply for licences which operates in the rest of the country—for off-licences and on-licences. Ever since the State Management Scheme came into being, those who live in Carlisle have not been able to buy from such a wide range of off-licence outlets as is available in the rest of the country, where supermarkets and grocers provide a sense of competition to the advantage of the inhabitants.
Second, the Secretary of State's power to prevent any competition to the State management scheme was usurping the powers of local licensing magistrates, who could operate on their local knowledge.
Third, we believe that there is a wholly inadequate return on the capital invested in this scheme. As my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading, taking the net trading profit, in the last three years the rate of return on the estimated value of the assets in the Carlisle area amounts to 4 per cent. before tax. It is economically ridiculous to carry on at that rate when the State has to borrow money at 8 or 9 per cent.
The Opposition, particularly the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), cannot have it both ways. The right hon. Gentleman argued many times in Committee that we had under-estimated the value of these premises, which he said

was much more than the £4 million we suggested. If so, the rate of return is even less, so the economic argument is strengthened.
The figures which were criticised on Second Reading related to net trading profit. If one really wants to look at the return on the capital involved which the State has received from the scheme, one should look not at the net trading profit but at the figure which more accurately corresponds to the amount distributed in profits by a commercial company; namely, that amount transmitted to the Consolidated Fund out of the profits of the scheme.
The figure for the last year up to March, 1970, transmitted was only £19,346. The rest of the profits were all unappropriated and, therefore, used for capital expenditure. If one looks at what happened over the five years ended March, 1970, one sees that the annual profits out of this scheme in Carlisle have amounted in total to £919,927 and that the capital expenditure has totalled £713,346, so that the actual return to the Consolidated Fund has worked out on average at a rate of about 1 per cent. It is, therefore, economic nonsense to suggest that this is a viable and profitable scheme for the State.
The fourth reason why this Bill was introduced was that we do not believe that the sale of liquor in the area of Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty Firth is an appropriate activity for Government. The social justification which may have justified setting up the scheme in 1916 no longer exists today.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock has attacked me for saying this, but I repeat that in my view it should not be the concern of the Home Secretary or his Department to be bothered with the sale of liquor in three small geographical areas. If it is right, as has been suggested, and if this is a proper activity in which Government should be involved, I again ask the right hon. Gentleman the question which he has studiously avoided throughout these debates: if it is right for Carlisle, why is it not right for the rest of the country? If it is wrong to denationalise the breweries in this area, why was it not right for the Labour Government to advocate that all breweries should be in the hands of the State?

Mr. William Hamilton: They should be.

Mr. Carlisle: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's view, and I hope that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock will answer my question.
In view of the wild imputations and allegations that have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, perhaps I should comment on the way in which the sale will be implemented. We have made it clear that we propose to sell these premises by the use of the advice that we receive from outside agents who will be appointed for the purpose of sale. Those outside agents are to be appointed by the Government for this purpose—

Mr. Ron Lewis: They will be Tories.

Mr. Carlisle: —and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) knows that the valuation department of the Treasury wrote to the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors inviting him to recommend to the Government appropriate agents for carrying out these sales. As I said on Report, we have invited to act for us those agents whom the President of that Institution has recommended.
How is it to be done? In Carlisle the unlicensed premises will be valued and offered at or near the valuation price to the existing tenants. Of the unlicensed premises, the smaller 40 or so will be offered at or near valuation to the sitting tenants or managers. If they are not interested, they will go to public auction. The hotels will be sold by public auction. The remainder of the public houses and breweries will be sold in accordance with the advice received from our agents as to the best methods of sale. The premises having been offered at or near valuation to the tenants or managers so as to give them the first right of purchase, if the position should occur that one of these individuals is not willing to meet the price we ask and comes back with a counter offer, then if such a property goes to public auction, the amount offered by the tenant will be taken into account when fixing what would be the appropriate reserve on that piece of property.
It is nonsensical for hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk about this method of sale being corrupt or to refer to is at

"selling off cheap" to the brewing industry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that there is no truth in that. It is abundantly clear that this is a wholly arm's-length transaction and a correct method for the Government to apply.
A substantial number of properties is involved and, therefore, the Bill lays down no timetable. We hope to complete the sale in about a year, but there is no question whatever of having to accept a lower price simply to complete the sale within a specific period.
Among all the wildest remarks made about the Bill, the most disgraceful were some of those made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who I notice has kept well away from any proceedings on the Bill after the despicable speech he made on Second Reading.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The Minister is a Judas.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman was quoted as saying that in the matter of the Government's disposal of these assets, the nation was seeing Toryism at its worst. He said there were two principles which should be a guide, the first that the Government were trustees for the public and should therefore get the best possible price, and the second that in view of the close relationship between the Government and big business, the methods used should be entirely above suspicion and conducted at arm's length. Both points are being met by this method of sale.

Mr. William Hamilton: But not in the Bill.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks were, therefore, completely ridiculous.
I have been questioned about the cost of the sale. We understand that the likely fees of the agents will be between 2¼ per cent. and 2¾ per cent. of the total amount realised. There will be no solicitors' and conveyancing fees because this work will be done by the Treasury Solicitor's Department in the normal way.
It has been suggested that by ending the monopoly of the Royal Assent before the disposal of the property has been completed we shall be reducing the price the taxpayer is likely to receive. This is a fallacious argument because, as I said


in Committee, anyone who buys knows full well that the monopoly position is to be removed and that he will have to face the normal risk of competition which he would face anywhere else. I therefore do not believe that there is any advantage to the taxpayer in retaining the monopoly position until the sale is made, when it will clearly be ended when the sale is completed.
As for the applications made in recent months to the two Secretaries of State concerned, we have made it clear that we do not propose to grant any of those pending the Royal Assent to the Bill, although upon the Royal Assent being given to it, when the monopolistic position of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will cease, any of those who have applied and who have licences will, of course, be free to trade. But we reserve the right of what we believe to be the normal commercial practice to oppose any further individual application which we believe would seriously damage the profitablity of any premises we still retain. We have made it clear that, as one of the purposes of the Bill is to remove the present monopoly, it is right to remove it forthwith.
The other matter concerns staff. Many points have been raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle who will agree that I have always, throughout the long debates, respected his sincerity and interest in this matter with regard to the staff. I have tried to answer his points and will take this final opportunity. The Bill referred to the saving of 1,200 posts. But I remind the House that that is the figure for the saving of Civil Service posts and does not mean that those people will become redundant.
We believe that the great majority of the staff, such as the hotel and restaurant staffs, barmaids, barmen and cleaners can, we hope, expect to look forward to the opportunity of being taken on by those who continue to run these public houses. I repeat that it is the Government's hope that many of those people will continue in their present occupation. To those who become redundant on the ending of their Civil Service post, I repeat yet again that those who have not found alternative employment within the Civil Service will receive the appropriate compensation under the Superannuation Act, 1965, or the Redundancy Payments Act,
1965, whichever is greater. Proposals for improved pension arrangements for premature retirement are now under discussion between the official and the staff sides of the National Whitley Council, and any staff in the State management district who become redundant will receive the benefit of these new arrangements.
Finally, I return to what I said at the beginning. It has been suggested that the Bill is in some way a paying-off of the brewers. That has been proved to be abject nonsense. Having sat throughout all the speeches that we had in Committee from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and the hon. Member for Fife, West and others, I must say that I resent the attacks made during debates on the Bill on the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. They were utterly malicious and utterly unjustified attacks.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: Certainly, on this point.

Mr. Hamilton: It was no personal attack but an attack on the Government as a whole. Nothing we said impugned the honour of an individual Minister. But there is an imputation—and it will stick—against the Government's honour because, whether they like it or not, they are tied to the brewers; they always have been.

Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Member for Fife, West says that he never made such an attack, I entirely accept that he did not. He may well be right. But on many occasions his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle made persistent personal attacks on the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Lord President. We never had a single speech when the hon. Member for Carlisle did not manage to bring my right hon. Friend's name in at some stage.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I will do it again.

Mr. Carlisle: I resent the attacks that were made.

Mr. Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that two hon. Gentlemen, myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William


Hamilton) had made persona] attacks on individuals; then he suddenly switched to someone else. Can he cite any personal attack I made on any named individual?

Mr. Carlisle: The tenor of the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was an attack on the integrity of the Home Secretary—

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross indicated dissent.

Mr. Carlisle: —and of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's purpose was to imply that these two Ministers were unfitted because of the Conservative Party's—he said—close association with the brewers, and that those two people, two of my right hon. Friends, were unfitted to be involved in any way with the Bill. If that is not an attack on the personal integrity of Ministers, I do not know what is.
I have made clear the reasons for the Bill. We do not believe that it is right for the Government to continue in an experiment started over 50 years ago and to continue the powers of the Secretary of State in these particular schemes in those areas. We believe that the work at present being done by the State management schemes—this is no criticism of those schemes—is better and more properly the rôle not of the State but of the individual and private enterprise.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: My first task is the quite pleasant one of congratulating the Secretary of State on the patience, charm and skill he has exhibited in very many long hours in Committee and on Report. I included also in my congratulation the performance of the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as a lawyer of considerable distinction, has calculated what fees he would have been earning had he been putting in the same hours of work in the criminal or the civil courts. I say no more about that.

Mr. Ross: He would not have won his case, though.

Mr. Morgan: Despite the skill and qualities of the Under-Secretary of State,

I am afraid that we regard his task as being a completely hopeless one. Not only was he making bricks without straw but without clay and water as well. We regard the Bill as unwholesome, its methods of operation as wholly impractical, the rationale behind it as unhealthy and dishonest, and the reasons for the Bill itself as totally unfounded.
On Second Reading the Home Secretary put forward four main reasons for the Bill. I was not impressed by them then and I was not impressed when they were repeated by the Under-Secretary a few minutes ago. The four cornerstones of the Government's case for the Bill are these: first, that it was a wartime experiment conceived in 1915–16 and that it is high time it was discontinued; second, that the system devised then has the effect of depriving licensing justices in England Scotland of their proper jurisdiction with regard to the grant of licences for the sale and supply of liquor; third, that it created a monopoly and therefore, ipso facto, it was objectionable; and fourth, that the return on capital was inadequate and that, for that reason, it was desirable that this asset should be disposed of as a matter of commercial common sense.
Despite 12 sittings in Committee, those cornerstones still poke themselves out of the rubble of the Government's case. Let us briefly look at them, firstly at the wartime experiment. Of course it was, in its inception, and it lasted so up to 1921, when Parliament fully considered the whole scheme in the light of the then changed circumstances and decided that this was a venture which should be placed upon a permanent foundation. It has indeed been a successful venture. The Southborough Committee, reporting in 1927, so found it to be, as did the Royal Commission on Licensing in 1931–33. I appreciate that a Commission which sat in Scotland came to a slightly different view. It is not for me to animadvert why the situation should have been so very different north of the Tweed. If Dr. Johnson were here he might have found very good reason for the different results achieved in that way.
It is our case that it is wholly wrong and misleading to portray the present scheme as being in any way on the same basis as the wartime experiment. That experiment was brought about by a very


severe social and national problem occasioned by the drunkenness of munitions workers at Gretna and of dockyard workers in the Cromarty Firth. Clearly anything which had been brought about in such special circumstances as those and placed upon a temporary basis could not have lasted as this scheme has for 56 years, and lasted through the tenure of Governments of various hues.
In 1921 Parliament considered that it was right that this scheme should endure for a very long time until a future Parliament was able to show that there was good cause why it should be discontinued. The onus is clearly upon any Government who seek to do that. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will concede that the temporary wartime experiment argument was a debating point and one which was quite unworthy of them.
The second point was equally shallow and was that justices were entitled to use their discretion and to have that finding upheld as to whether additional licences should be granted. As we well know, the power that has been vested in the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland is a permissive, not a mandatory, power. In any single case it lies within the authority of those two Secretaries of State to exercise their discretion in favour of the decision that has been made by the licensing justices.
If, therefore, the Government were moved by the consideration that the licensing justices were being wrongly overridden, the solution was a simple one and lay in their own hands. No legislation was necessary to cure that. All that they had to do was to announce as a matter of change in administrative policy that from thenceforth they would regard the recommendations of the justices in a different light.
The third point concerned their abhorrence of monopoly. This was mentioned on Second Reading and at great length in Committee. On a number of occasions the Government's attention has been drawn to the Report of the Monopolies Commission on Beer which was published in 1969. It is made very clear there that the Royal Commission utterly condemned the tied house system which was to a large extent married to the

monopoly situation which exists in the brewing industry.
Up to that point, we had not heard any authoritative statement by the Government to give any clue to their thinking on that problem. They had not told the House, "We accept the views of the Monopolies Commission. We say that monopoly per se is unwholesome and therefore we do not want it". Indeed it was only after this point had been rammed home time and time again that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was able to say that the Erroll Committee would include within its terms of reference the question of tied houses. If monopoly is all-important in the Government's consideration, they should have tackled first the mountain of the general problem and not the molehill of the little local situations at Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty.
The fourth point was that of profit—that the return on profit, as we were told on Second Reading, was 4 per cent. I noticed that a totally different figure was given tonight by the Under-Secretary, or certainly figures computed on a totally different basis.

Mr. Carlisle: I said that the figure of 4 per cent. was based on net trading profit. The amount which was handed to the Consolidated Fund and the amount of unappropriated profits which were ploughed back in further capital reduced from 4 per cent. to 1 per cent. the amount that the State received.

Mr. Morgan: The only figure that was mentioned on Second Reading was 4 per cent. The first that we have heard about 1 per cent. is today. I have no confidence that the Government are here comparing like with like. The case put by the Home Secretary on Second Reading was, "State enterprises are returning 4 per cent. in Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty Firth. The yearly average of the 10 biggest and most successful breweries is about 10 per cent. Therefore, accepting that as normal, it is right and necessary that these assets should be liquidated and invested to give a better return".
The calculation which brewers make of return on capital differs from case to case. Often they resort, not to an actual valuation of the premises, but to historic


cost, and on other occasions to a complicated formula which is worked back from the wet rent calculation. I quote from paragraph 270 of the Report of the Monopolies Commission:
the value
of licensed premises
has been calculated by reference to the profits expected to result from the ownership of those premises".
That is a situation where the profit was calculated, not only on the actual valuation, not on the historic cost, not the current valuation, but on a notional figure.
Therefore, anybody who has looked with any degree of care at these figures will take the view that it is possible in these circumstances to exercise a debating legerdemain with the figures. Figures can be culled from any of these situations dependant on the different valuation and one is able to prove any case.
If the historic cost basis is applied, surely the figures I have here of profit and valuations on historic cost basis from 1950 to 1970 are of the utmost relevance. They range from 8 per cent. in 1969 to the highest, which was 17·7 per cent. in 1963. One thing on which we agree is that in the last three years the profits are clearly on a rising curve.
An alternative argument of the Under-Secretary in Committee—this argument was also advanced by the Home Secretary on Second Reading—was that it is not as if we had to spend the £4·7 million at which the premises and other assets are valued at present; it is not, indeed, as if we had to borrow it at a high rate of interest; on the other hand, if we were to liquidate these premises we could say of that capital that it would notionally earn between 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. That is a fair summary of the argument advanced by the Under-Secretary in Committee.
Even if that argument is accepted, the facts of the situation are against the Under-Secretary. But that is not half the case. It does not take capital appreciation into account. There can be nothing in the three other points that we have disposed of, so the Government are saying that the main, perhaps the sole, consideration is the necessity to do what

is right by the taxpayer, to act in a way consistent with financial common sense, the only consideration being financial gain. If that were the consideration, one would not destroy the monopoly, because to a large extent the value of the assets turns upon the fact that they are a monopoly.
The Government are the trustees of public assets belonging to the British people. A trustee charged with the duty of exercising his discretion as to whether to dispose of an asset must always bear in mind the question of capital appreciation. Let us imagine a person who is a trustee for sale, the executor and trustee of a will with the discretion as to whether or not to sell. He considers the investment and the return it shows. Has he not also to consider whether there is the possibility, or even the likelihood, of a substantial capital appreciation in the near future? We have heard today how the development of the smelter at Invergordon may well add very substantially to the capital value of the assets we are considering. It would be negligent of a trustee not to take cognisance of the possibility or certainty of capital appreciation. But that is exactly what the trustees are doing here. They know that there will be a substantial capital appreciation within a few years, yet in the name of their superior financial acumen they say that those assets should be frittered away in a situation where it is clear that they cannot approach their market value. I believe that the House will treat with contempt such an argument by right hon and hon. Members opposite.
The point that has emerged throughout all these debates is that there never was any demand in any of the localities concerned for the disposal of the assets. It was not put to the people in the General Elections of 1966 or 1970 in a way in which it could be claimed that a clear mandate had been given. Even if it is claimed that the words of the Scottish Conservative manifesto at the last General Election justify such an argument, a very heavy gloss was put upon them when the present Lord Chancellor made it clear that what he was advocating was the termination of the Home Secretary's function as a publican, and transferring that jurisdiction to a public body or trust. There was no question of disposing of the assets to the brewers or any other private interest.
In the Second Reading debate on the Licensed Premises in New Towns Act, 1952, the following words were said by a rising and very promising Conservative politician. That Bill was the Government's answer to a case made by the former Labour Government for the extension of licensed management outside the areas we are considering. This is what was said:
Finally, and most important of all, there is the question of local public opinion. I am quite convinced that there is no substantial public opinion in any of the districts concerned that demands State management of the public houses in the new towns. It is because this public opinion is the most important consideration of all that I particularly ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 1200.]
The speaker was the present Home Secretary. If public opinion be the one important determinant and criterion in the extension of licensed management, it must be a very important criterion in this context. If the right hon. Gentleman is willing to bow to public opinion when it leads in one direction, he should be willing to respect it when it goes in the other.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend must be careful, or he will bring the Common Market in.

Mr. Morgan: It is no part of my case to say that the present Government are the most sensitive towards public opinion, but I abjure all temptations in that direction.
I turn to the argument about the involvement of the Government with the possible potential purchasers of the assets, the brewers, who in 1968 and 1969 contributed, I believe, £150,000 to the coffers of the Conservative Party. When Lord Carrington took his begging bowl round the City in 1968 and 1969 there were some very interesting results among the brewers. The contributions of those who did best among the 10 big brewers of Britain were the most niggardly. For example, Bass Charrington in 1968 contributed the paltry sum of only £450, and in 1969 only £67, whereas others were contributing in fives, sevens, tens and twelves of thousands of pounds. I do not know whether the successful companies did not regard the Conservative Party as a very wholesome investment or whether not being among those who did best is the visitation of a just fate upon those who made substantial contributions.
I am not in a position to say that there is any direct evidence of a corrupt understanding between any individual brewer and the Conservative Party or any group of brewers and the Conservative Party. That has never been any part of my case. I say that because I have not been able to make a detailed examination of the facts. It is wrong that such allegations should be made unless proof positive can be provided, and I am not making them. But what I say is this. Here are the Government, the trustee of public assets, about to dispose of those assets. It is possible—I put it no higher—that these assets could go to people who have themselves been contributors to Tory Party funds within the last few years. The one question that I put in the House—and it is the duty of every hon. Member to put it—is whether that is coincident, whether that is consistent with the standards of public administration that we have had and do have in this country.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: The hon. Gentleman must also agree that there is nothing to stop these assets going also to people who have contributed to Socialist Party funds through the co-operative societies, if they make the right bid through the honest way in which we are disposing of them.

Mr. Morgan: Of course. But I am not pretending that I am laying down one rule for one party alone. I am saying that, where there is the slightest connection, direct or indirect, between any member of the public or group of the public with any Government, then the disposal of these assets must be done in such a way that Ministers of the Crown are insulated from the possibility of the slightest involvement in that situation. I am not making any innuendo. What I am saying is that we have strict standards of public morality in Britain and that it is right and proper that these should be maintained.
Due to those standards, charges of corruption in our public life are very few, but when they do come the test is an extremely rigorous one. It is not a question of how many tens of thousands of £s but a question of whether any consideration, however slight, has passed. I should have thought that the Government would have been delighted to have placed their Ministers in such a way as to be


able to say that they were upholding these rigid standards.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Will the hon. Gentleman carry the analogy further? Would he say that if the Labour Party were in Government it would be improper for one of their Ministers to take part in negotiations with the trade unions on matters such as wage levels? Would the same principle be said to apply as between the unions and the public sector?

Mr. Morgan: I do not see that that analogy is correct. I think that it is intended more as a spear than as an analogy. It would be equally wrong for any Labour Minister to be in charge of a disposition where there was the slightest possibility that that disposition might be to a person who had contributed towards Labour Party funds. It is a question of upholding certain standards or rejecting them, and it is the choice of the Government and of the Tory Party to reject them.
I have said that I regard this Bill as being dishonestly conceived. When the Government came to office through a freak of fortune 12 months ago, they found themselves in the position where they had to frame in a very short time propasals for a comprehensive programme. I am sure that they found how difficult it was to try to make policy out of prejudice, but they did succeed in part in devising policies dedicated to the destruction of economic planning and to placing a moratorium on regional growth. But even that was not enough for their negativism and their reaction could not be satiated by that. It was necessary to bring about some dismemberment of the public services.
I can well imagine the Prime Minister brooding about this question in his bath in those days at the end of June last year. There was so much in the public sector that he would have wished to have grasped the opportunity to touch—coal, steel, gas, electricity, the railways, the post office and so on—but all these were matters which a Conservative Government, even one as insensitive to public opinion as this one, would not dare to grasp. But quite suddenly one can imagine the Prime Minister leaping up dripping from his

bath, clutching himself and saying, "Eureka ! I have found it."
So it was that a presentational exercise was arranged, an exercise that would at the same time exhibit the doctrinal consistency of present-day Tory masters while sowing the seeds of fright and insecurity amongst those who work in the public sector. But there is a further irony of this Bill. The Government have been accused of fiddling, and I believe that they have fiddled. They have fiddled their doctrinal tunes while the hopes of Rolls-Royce and U.C.S. and their satellites were burning.
This is a macabre situation. They failed to stab the strong; instead, they slaughtered the weak. In consequence of their reactionary venom they have caused many hundreds—indeed, some thousands—of people in Carlisle and Gretna and the Cromarty Forth area to lose work and security. These people, from the head brewer to the junior temporary barmaid, have all been made sacrifices to an attempt to distract public opinion from the impetus and sterility of the Government.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I must declare an interest. As I think is known, I am a director of a brewery company, which seems to be one of the interests which has to be declared in the debate.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) had a difficult task. I think he had a conflict between his basic sincerity and, if I may say so, his nice-ness and the sneering arguments put forward by his hon. Friends. I think he did not come out of the compromise as happily as he, on reflection, may have hoped. Having withdrawn any imputation of any improper conduct against individuals or of any improper association between the Government and the brewery companies, he by inference continued to repeat it.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I want to emphasise that I look very generally at this matter. I have been a watchdog rather than a bloodhound. If one had conducted detailed researches it may well be that one would have been able to substantiate the charges made by my hon. Friends, but I have not looked at it at that level—just from the point of


view of the standards of public administration in Britain. I say no more than that.

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman has made the position even worse. To say that one is not able to make an accusation, of corruption, because one has not had the opportunity to delve deeply enough, but that had one done so one might have been able to support the accusation, is an intolerable smear and is unworthy of an hon. Member for whom I have respect. I hope that he will withdraw that unfair reference. If he wishes to make a charge, he should make it and substantiate it and not put it in that sort of way.
After all the irrelevancies that there have been during the two days spent debating this minor Bill on the Floor of the House, after all the abuse and personal insults from hon. Members opposite, none of which they would dare to repeat outside this Chamber, we have returned to the nub of the argument, put so well by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary. The hon. Member for Cardigan did not seem to be able to confound or dispute those arguments but he got himself lost in a lot of figures. I am sure that hon. Members found the logic of his speech difficult to follow.
I will confine my speech mainly to the point I made on Second Reading, so that hon. Members opposite who have had plenty of opportunity to work on the arithmetic may follow the argument. The Government have an investment with a book value of about £2¼ million. It has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the real value of the assets is between £4·7 million and, as one hon. Member said, £6 million. As my hon. and learned Friend said, the higher the figure the lower the return.

Mr. Idris Owen: Does my hon. Friend recall that it was the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) who said that a figure of £10 million had been suggested?

Mr. Boardman: That just shows the enormous disparity between the various sums that have been bandied about and the importance of having the method of valuation and disposal which is being adopted. The average profit in the last three years has been £200,000. The average amount remitted to the Consoli-

dated Fund, the sole income going into the public Exchequer, has been £70,000 per annum. The amount repaid from the Consolidated Fund to the State management for capital purposes has been nearly equal to the total amount that has gone by way of income from State management to the Consolidated Fund.
The net return to the taxpayer has been very low indeed. I will take the most generous presentation which is fair for the purposes of the argument, I will take an average profit of £200,000 and a value of £4·7 million.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: indicated assent.

Mr. Boardman: I see the hon. Member nods, accepting that those are fair figures for the basis of the sum. The return on that would be about 4¼ per cent. gross. It has to be remembered that the Exchequer has received no revenue in the form of corporation tax from this venture. If hon. Gentlemen had referred to the P.I.B. report of November, 1969, they would have seen that the assessed return on capital employed in the private sector was 10 per cent. The hon. Member for Cardigan may have noted that the P.I.B.—the blue-eyed boys of hon. Gentlemen opposite—considered that that return was quite inadequate. On the strength of that return it recommended substantial increases in beer prices, which it said were necessary so that the capital investment by the industry could be effectively used for the benefit of the community and to provide an adequate return to those who had invested their money.
In Carlisle and the other State management areas we have a return of 4¼ per cent. If we take a 10 per cent. return on £4·7 million it will be necessary to have profits of £470,000. The gross profits have averaged £200,000 so that there has been a shortfall on the return—which was considered by the P.I.B. to be inadequate—of £270,000 per annum. No wonder the Carlisle State Management Scheme was able to offer beer at a lower price than elsewhere. It was being subsidised by the taxpayers. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Carlisle, whose temperance views I respect, should echo enthusiastically the praise uttered in support of the fact that the taxpayer is subsidising the beer-drinkers.

Mr. Ron Lewis: They are not and never have been.

Mr. Boardman: The meat of the argument is that to achieve what the P.I.B. has acknowledged to be an inadequate return, an additional £270,000 of profit per annum would be necessary. The public sector was short of £270,000 per annum, which is the amount by which it has subsidised the beer drinkers of Carlisle.

Mr. Ron Lewis: No.

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Member may be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and disprove that argument. It is little wonder that beer was cheaper there and that the return of 4¼ per cent. is something which my right hon. Friend does not consider justifies the continuance of this scheme. It is not the right way for the nation to use its resources.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: While the hon. Member may or may not be pleading a successful case for raising the price of beer in the Carlisle scheme, may I ask him whether he appreciates that he is not making out a case for the sale of these assets? Surely a prudent trustee must take into account the prospect of capital appreciation? Will he apply his mind to that?

Mr. Boardman: I am coming to that point. It has been said by my hon. and learned Friend that these assets will be sold by public auction or to the tenants. The valuers are being appointed. The potential growth of the area and other such factors to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will be taken into account in the valuation. The higher the value the lower is the return. It is no duty of the Government, or any other Government, to run a brewery at a subsidised rate for beer drinkers. Having declared my interest in a brewery I would add that I consider it completely wrong that beer drinkers should be subsidised in any way.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: They are subsidising you.

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Member, from a sedentary position—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I will get up. I was saying that the beer drinkers who drink Allied Breweries' beer are subsidising the hon. Member. I have seen the returns he

gets—thousands of pounds a year; it is these people who are subsidising him.

Mr. Boardman: I do not propose to deal with that point. It is a matter between myself and the company. I have no shame about the job I do outside here, nor do I have any shame about the way in which I represent my constituency.
Let me move on to the next point which the hon. Member made when he referred to the monopoly position. He was being less than fair in quoting selectively from the Monopolies Commission Report. He knows that that report made no recommendations on the lines he inferred. The Monopolies Commission Report could not recommend any change to the tied house system except in the context of a complete review of the licensing laws. As is well known to the hon. Gentleman, at an early stage the Government set up a committee to review the licensing laws.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent the situation. Paragraph 414 of the Monopolies Commission's Report says:
Having regard to what we have said in paragraph 395, it is particularly in England and Wales that the tied house system operates against the public interest and that a remedy for the defects of that system is called for

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman quoted accurately but selectively. If he will refer to paragraph 416 he will see that the Monopolies Commission was unable to make any recommendation except that there should be a complete review of the licensing system.
It is regrettable that the Opposition have seen fit to conduct their opposition to the Bill in the way in which they have. They have made personal attacks; they have attacked an industry and many individuals who are unable to defend themselves. Perhaps the worst feature was yesterday's scraping of the barrel, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will take this opportunity to withdraw the implication that was clearly made when he said:
It is said that the brewers will not buy. It shows the power of the brewers that they say that instead they will put up new pubs, acting on the comfortable guarantee that they will get licences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1971; Vol. 819, c. 1492.]


The grant of licences or the refusal to grant licences is a matter for the licensing justices. The "comfortable guarantee that they will get licences" can only imply that the licensing justices have been squared. There can be no guarantee, let alone a comfortable guarantee, that the brewers will get licences before an independent and impartial licensing court. Was the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the licensing justices in these areas are anything les than fair and impartial?

Mr. Ross: How can they be sure that they will get a licence?

Mr. Boardman: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I will give way. The clear inference from his words yesterday was that a comfortable guarantee had been given to the brewers that they would get new licences. If the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to suggest that, I will accept it.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman knows what we debated yesterday, which was something different, and he has heard my explanation. If a brewer says that he is going to build a public house, he must have a licence. The brewers are taking an awful lot for granted in saying that they are going to do that.

Mr. Boardman: Anyone who assumed he would get a licence would be taking an awful lot for granted—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member does not say how many times Allied Breweries have been refused.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris): Order. We cannot have a running commentary across the Floor of the House. I hope the House will listen to the hon. Member.

Mr. Boardman: If the right hon. Gentleman intended to imply that the brewers were hoping to get licences, his remarks were unhappily phrased. The words which I have read out and his explanation left a clear imputation, which I hoped he would wish to withdraw completely, that the licensing justices would be less than impartial. We are left with this further scraping of the barrel in the way in which the case was presented yesterday.
A considerable attack has been made on political contributions. Are the Indus-

tries which rely upon private enterprise wrong to support the party that believes in it, and are they wrong to oppose the party which threatens to nationalise them?

Mr. Ron Lewis: Tell us what is in the pipeline.

Mr. Boardman: That is what contributions to the Conservative Party from industry have been aimed to do—to promote the party that believes in private enterprise, and not to promote firms' individual interests except as part of the general prosperity of the economy and the promotion of the right climate for private enterprise.

Mr. Lewis: Lolly for the directors.

Mr. Boardman: We on this side of the House do not attack trade unions or trade union Members by accusing them of corruption or dishonesty.

Mr. James Sillars: Yes, you do.

Mr. Boardman: We believe that hon. Members with an interest in and a knowledge of trade unions have a special contribution to make to debates. We do not accuse trade unions which contribute handsomely to Labour Party funds of corruptingly influencing the Labour Party when that party was in Government. We accept that pressure comes from the trade unions in various ways. It is unfortunate that the suggestion of corruption because of a political contribution has been made by hon. Members opposite, who could be far more justifiably attacked from this side if we were so unmannerly as to do so.
The synthetic fury and cheap sneers from the benches opposite are no answer to the Bill. The Bill achieves what was clearly set out by my right hon. Friend in his Second Reading speech. It does away with the monopoly which the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), was anxious to do away with. According to Press reports he was endeavouring to find a means of abolishing the scheme and of breaking up the monopoly. That report was in the Press, and there was no denial. The intention is to stop large public resources being employed at an inadequate return to subsidise the beer drinkers of Carlisle.
The Government intend to pull the State out of those sectors which can be managed best by private enterprise. This does not necessarily mean that this business can best be managed by the brewers, which seems to be the inference of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There will, I hope, be every encouragement to those who believe they can do better than the brewers to buy the properties which are put up for auction. I believe that the brewers would welcome the competition that would come in that way. The Bill is aimed at achieving these objects. The synthetic heat and fury which we have heard from the Opposition shows how false is their target and how small-minded and inadequate is their opposition to this Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: We have just heard the hon. Member for Leicester, Southwest (Mr. Tom Bordman) and Allied Breweries in a filibustering speech championing the claims of the brewers. Though much could be said I shall be brief in my remarks, because I want to be fair to the House, to my colleagues who want an opportunity to take part in this debate, and to my constituents who will suffer more than anybody from these proposals.
This Bill is a plum for the pie of private enterprise barons, handsome subscribers to the Tory Party funds. It will be interesting in future to read how much money from the brewers will be channelled to the Penrith and The Border constituency for the right hon. Gentleman who played his part in the Cabinet in the murder of the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme. No doubt some of these funds will be channelled through the Tory Party Central Office to Carlisle since I understand that the Tory Party in my constituency is in dire financial straits. Whatever money is channelled to that constituency by the brewers or the Tory Party, I assure the House that my seat is one of the safest in the country.
Since the Government announced these proposals, not one single local authority in the County of Cumberland has come out in support of the Government's intention.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Not even the brewers.

Mr. Lewis: No, not even the brewers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) says.

Mr. Idris Owen: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) has extolled the virtues of the State licensing system and he has suggested that nobody in Carlisle would wish to see the system denationalised. If the State system has been such a fantastic success, how is it the peripheral authorities have not said, "Please extend this system to our areas because we want to share in this success"?

Mr. Lewis: I was just coming to that point. I am saying that not a single local authority in Cumberland has come out in support of the Government's proposals in the Bill; but a number of local authorities in Cumberland have written to me, as I am sure they have written to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), saying that they feel it is a crying shame that the Government should put forward this Bill. Many Cumberland local authorities would like to see an extension of the principle of public enterprise in the liquor trade.

Mr. R. B. Cant: Surely the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) must know from his great experience that local authorities are governed strictly by the ultra vires rule. If we had a more sensible local government system as exists in the Common Market, in which authorities could act in accordance with the common good, they would all have been more enthusiastic for the Carlisle experiment.

Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that interjection but I will not take up his argument since I want to give other hon. Members the opportunity to take part in this debate. I am suggesting that there has hardly been a voice in Cumberland in support of what the Government are doing. The local chairman of the Tory Party in my constituency has written a letter on the lines that nobody wants to replace one monopoly by another and that nobody wishes to see either the brewery or the brew disappear. But this is what will happen under the Bill. The brewery will close and the brew in fact will disappear. We will have unemployment in Carlisle, and we already know that the unemployment figures in the area


are increasing. In addition, people in Carlisle will have to pay higher prices for their beer and there is no guarantee that the public houses in the city will keep open. I prophesy that within five or ten years there might well be an even bigger monopoly in Carlisle than is the case at present.
No doubt the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West knows how the brewing industry works, but no amount of juggling with words about the return on capital will wash with the majority of people in my constituency. Ever since the inception of the State management scheme, it has not once made a loss.
I hope that I speak for Liberal opinion in the County of Cumberland when I say that. It is a shame that throughout these proceedings the voice of the Liberal Party has been absent, bearing in mind that Lloyd George was the author of the scheme as a member of a Liberal Administration.
We have heard a great deal about barrels, and I want now to refer to the two barrels of beer which came to the House yesterday having been sent by a public-spirited gentleman in Carlisle, a Mr. John Lett. He may even be a member of the Tory Party. Certainly he is a public-spirited gentleman, and apparently he felt that hon. Members should have an opportunity to sample the State beer. He dispatched two 9-gallon drums of beer, and they arrived in London yesterday morning. I knew nothing about them in advance. Certainly I did not court the gift. But I found myself involved. The beer arrived at Smithfield Market, and it was brought to this House yesterday. Throughout last night, it remained within the precincts of the House—

Mr. Lipton: Shame.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend says, "Shame". However, he will have an opportunity, possibly next week, to sample the State beer from Carlisle—

Mr. Lipton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lewis: That also applies to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
This is the end of the State management scheme, and it will be a sad day for the people of Carlisle, who suspect all the more that the Government's proposal

is a great fiddle since, according to the terms of the Bill, there will be no report to Parliament. The only information that we shall be able to get about the disposal of the properties is by Question and Answer. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he will be asked a great many questions.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It may be that my hon. Friend is not quite right. Once this Bill becomes an Act, the Minister will cease to have Ministerial responsibility. The probability is that my hon. Friend will not even be able to ask the questions, since the Minister will deny Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I must leave the hon. and learned Gentleman to answer my hon. Friend's point. I cannot go as far as to say that. But there will be no report to Parliament about the transactions. We do not know what is to happen. We do not know, for example, whether the premises will be disposed of at market value or at a figure less than their market value. The only way that we shall be able to find out will be by question and answer. Therefore, this is a fiddle, and the Bill stinks. The people of Carlisle know it because they will eventually have to pay more for their beer. I suggest that at the next General Election, as the Government had no mandate for doing this from the County of Cumberland, even the seat of the Leader of the House could be in grave danger.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Kinsey: I welcome the Bill. It will be of immense benefit to the areas concerned because they will have individual freedom returned to them. The nation will also benefit because this is of importance to tourism, particularly in the Scottish Highlands.
The licensing and catering trade benefits mainly from the experienced touch of the individual. The houses or restaurants of private catering organisations and individual caterers are much the best. We all know of the success that comes from the flair of the individual, particularly in catering.
The free enterprise part of the licensing trade is under handicap because there is too little individual management throughout the country. I expressed that


opinion on Second Reading. If the free enterprise section experiences this handicap, it must be even worse when we have the dead hand of the State controlling part of an industry about which it knows very little and is so little interested in with its civil servant approach. I hope that the State staff in the Carlisle area do not serve pints as we are served with income tax forms, because they are certainly unpalatable when I receive them.
We know that the method of disposing of the State controlled industry in Carlisle will be fair, just and above suspicion. I have referred to this before and I repeat it. The method of disposal which has been outlined to us will ensure that it is disposed of in a proper manner, I do not suppose that there will be the amount of individual control which I should like to see, but I am satisfied with the guarantee which my hon. and learned Friend gave in Committee that the managers or tenants of these houses are to be given the first option to purchase them. A similar option extends to Scotland. I am happy with that assurance. The main interests of the area and the people working within the industry will best be served by the methods of disposal outlined by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman make his position clear? He has talked about managers and licensees. As an advocate of free enterprise, is he taking the view that the public houses in Carlisle to take the place of the present system will be tied or free houses?

Mr. Kinsey: The method of disposal will ensure that the houses are not tied.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Kinsey: Because I understand that the managers or tenants of 40 of those houses are being given first choice to purchase them.

Mr. Lewis: Where will they get the beer from?

Mr. Kinsey: From whatever brewery moves into the area. They are not tied to any brewery within the area. There is a wide area from which they can draw.

An individual manager has a better chance to deal with the tied brewery system. If I had a free house I should take the choice of beers which my customers preferred. That is what will happen in these areas, because wise management will prevail.
I am delighted that the Minister met the request made by both sides of the House to ensure that as many people as possible could buy their properties. This will be most beneficial in the Highlands, because the individual touch, the making of on-the-spot decisions, and careful attention to the needs of the customer, will come out tops and meet the requirements of tourists in that area.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Where, in any part of London, can the hon. Gentleman go into a Truman's house and buy a Whit-bread beer, or go in to a Watney's house and buy a Truman's beer? The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the pubs are tied to the hilt.

Mr. Kinsey: It seems that the hon. Gentleman goes round looking for nothing but Truman's or Watney's beer. There are other breweries. I can get what I consider to be one of the best beers, a Midlands beer, Mitchells and Butler, in the centre of London. I can get a Guinness anywhere in London. I have a choice. If I care to go around, I can get whatever beer I want. That is the sort of thing to which the Opposition blind themselves. That they should deny something in one area, yet want to see it in another, seems to be a twisted argument in any case. There is no point in saying that they want only one beer throughout the country, and in the next breath ask where they can get a different beer. It does not make sense at all.

Mr. Idris Owen: Mr. Idris Owen rose—

Mr. Kinsey: No. I would rather be helped by my enemies than by my friends.
We are all very good natured at the moment, but one of the things that has worried me throughout the proceedings on the Bill, from the Second Reading debate, through to the Committee stage, Report stage and now Third Reading, has been the smear campaign conducted by hon. Gentlemen opposite in speech after speech. It has been apparent in every Amendment, and it was started by someone who, before I came to the House,


I considered to be a highly respected and responsible person. I am thinking of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He started this innuendo and smear campaign which has been taken up and bandied about, but it has done the Opposition no good at all.
The smear has been repudiated by the trade papers, which have taken a careful interest in this debate. The Morning Advertiser has been quoted because of its individual character. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have quoted it more often than they have quoted HANSARD. It has been almost the Bible of the Opposition throughout the proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. Ross: Did the hon. Gentleman say "Bible"?

Mr. Kinsey: I said "almost".
That is the sort of thing that has been happening. If that is the standard of the Opposition's misrepresentation of every other issue, the country is being ill-informed by them. If ever Scottish Labour Members say, "Look how well we are doing in Scotland", I can only reply that the Scottish people are having to put up with a tremendous amount of misrepresentation. It has also been said that certain Clauses will cause unemployment, but the Bill will increase employment opportunities. Individual management will ensure that the trade propers as it did not before. Individual concern for the customer will tell.
This must be a concern for the temperance movement in the North, which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) told us had passed a resolution. A temperance society passing a resolution in favour of State beer against private enterprise beer—

Mr. Ron Lewis: It is the principle.

Mr. Kinsey: I can imagine the headline—"Temperance Movements say State Beer is Best".

Mr. Lewis: The temperance movement and the licensed trade will be working hand in hand when the Enroll Report is published.

Mr. Kinsey: That sounds an unholy alliance. The movement seems to be doing this because it wants more use of public houses. I assume that it is not supporting a brewery but simply one system against another. Better sales of

beer because of better management means better employment.
I pay tribute to the two Ministers, who have been fair and courteous to the Opposition under the greatest provocation. They have brought in a Bill which is fair, just and above suspicion. They have given a little more freedom to a few more people and that is why the Socialists do not like it. This means service. No matter how good the State, the individual is much better.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. James Lamond: I did not serve on the Committee, but I wanted to inform my constituents who are puzzled at the high priority given to this Bill when they are so upset by the other consequences of the Tory Party—rising unemployment and prices increasing daily. I am as astonished as my constituents.
One likes to be charitable towards hon. Members opposite and to search among their speeches for a motive which deserves examination. One or two of them have tried to explain that the return on the capital invested is not high enough to justify the continuance of public ownership. But if the complaint was that too little profit was being made because the beer was too cheap, I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have had no compunction about ordering a rise in price.
The Government seem prepared to accept sharp increases in the price of food to smooth our way into the Common Market, but rather than increase the price of beer in these establishments they will go through the procedure of taking a Bill through Parliament and dismantling this State management system.
Is there any truth in the suggestion that there is corruption involved in the Bill? As one who had experience of local government before coming to Parliament, I was surprised on arriving here to discover that hon. Members have freedom to take part in discussing and voting on matters in which they clearly have a financial interest.
Parliament lays down in legislation relevant to members of local authorities that they should not take part in and vote on matters in which they may have only a slight financial interest. Until recently any resident in a council house


was deemed to have a deep financial interest in the level of rents, and it was only after an application was made to the Secretary of State for Scotland that this rule was relaxed.
Is it not strange that we in this place have no inhibitions about this, particularly when we may have a considerable financial interest? I am not prepared to go so far as to question the motives of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that to ensure that they will not be accused of such conduct, they should declare their interest when taking part in a discussion of this type.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee that examined the Bill, and, being conscious of the fact that many hon. Members who took part in the earlier debates on the Measure are anxious to speak, I have kept my remarks as brief as possible.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Gray: I am pleased to speak following the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond). Although he was not a member of the Committee, it is right that he should have contributed to this debate in view of the interest which I know he has in the Bill.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have exaggerated this issue, particularly in Committee. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) regaled us at that stage with some of the results that would flow from this legislation, but I dealt at an early stage with some of his utterances and I do not believe that there was much in the various suggestions he made.
I am bound to consider the Bill from a constituency point of view because in the Cromarty Firth area the State management set-up is quite different from that which exists in Carlisle, about which we have heard a great deal.
On a number of occasions in Committee, I ask the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) the straightforward question, if his party felt so strongly about this, would they go so far as to say that they would renationalise those hotels if returned to power? The hon. Member for Fife, West—I do not want to misquote him; I am sure that he would not let me—went further and frequently

called out, "Yes, and a lot more too". As long as the people realise that the object of the Labour Party is to nationalise as many hotels as possible—if they are sincere in what they have been saying—that is all right, because we know where we stand.
As for my constituency in the Highlands of Scotland, I have great hopes for that area and for the future of the Highlands, not only with the industrial developments which may well take place in the Easter Ross area around Invergordon but for the future potential for tourism. I see the hotels which are being denationalised—that is what is happening—playing a vital part under the control of private individuals, family groups and small people who want to get on and who want to develop the Highlands for tourism. I do not accept the suggestion made from the benches opposite that the brewers will have a bonanza in the Highlands. That is not the case.

Mr. Ron Lewis: It is in Carlisle.

Mr. Gray: I would not deign to argue with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) about conditions which pertain in his constituency. I am taking, perhaps, the purely parochial view. Throughout the Committee stage, the hon. Member will agree that we had to listen to a great deal about Carlisle. I make no apology for talking for the Highlands. These hotels have a vital part to play and I am sure that we can look forward to a prosperity in the Highlands in which the hotels and individuals will share as a result of the Bill.
Mention has been made of local courts. I agree that in the past local courts have taken the decision that a licence could be granted here and should be granted there, and it has been the Secretary of State for Scotland's prerogative to decide whether to confirm the decision. Secretaries of State of successive Governments have decided against, and a great many of those people who have received local approval have been disappointed. The hon. Member for Oldham, East, having considerable experience of local government, will realise what I mean about local licensing courts. The situation was that local licensing courts agreed that a licence was desirable for this or that local hotel but those decisions were not implemented by the Secretary of


State, with one or two very minor exceptions.
As we move towards an era in which we shall have reorganisation of local government, it is only right, if we give local magistrates a power which they administer with very great consideration, honesty and trust, that that power is brought to fruition.
In my view of the future of the Highlands, I like to think beyond just Invergordon and the Easter Ross area. At Invergordon at one time we had a massive naval base into which the Home Fleet entered annually. This provided a tremendous number of jobs and it was a wonderful situation. As the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) rightly pointed out, this was during the first war and one of the reasons why the then Bill was introduced was the excessive drunkenness which occurred. As the years have passed and we have progressed, I would hope that drunkenness in the Highlands is now within reasonable proportions. I do not think that that reason exists any longer. If there is a degree of drunkenness in the Highlands from time to time, it is contributed to by incomers to just as great an extent as it is by locals. A request was made in the House yesterday that pubs in the Highlands should be opened on Sundays. Those who live there would deplore that. We attract tourists because the conditions up there are very different; and long may they remain so.
There has been much reference to the brewers. Let us look beyond my constituency to Aviemore. I remember Aviemore when it was a desolate little village. It is now a thriving concern providing employment for hundreds of people. It has flourishing hotels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Incomers."] Many of them are. I did not decry incomers. I said that they had contributed to drunkenness. One of the firms of much-despised brewers has contributed handsomely to the prosperity of the village.
My constituency has facilities for skiing which are far in advance of anything which Aviemore can provide. I refer to the slopes of Ben Wyvis. I have been urging the Highlands and Islands Development Board to agree to the development of Ben Wyvis, to try to get a developer to move in and create in that area something like there is at Avie-

more. It may well be that this would be a brewer, but it is outside the State management area. The brewers have not nibbled to any extent anywhere else in my constituency outside the State management area. So I do not share the difficulties which have been expressed for the smaller hotels.
I welcome the Government's decision as it affects my constituency. I can see great prosperity developing and I want to see local people participating in it.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I shall be brief because not only my colleagues but also the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) are anxious to contribute, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman) will no doubt wish to speak as one of the most loquacious members of the Committee.
I have previously spoken of the Under-Secretary's courage in tackling the task which he has been given. However, he had a dose of the cold feet tonight, because he loosed off a blunderbuss attack on the members of the Committee for scurrilous accusations.
During the whole of the Committee proceedings I did not mention the Lord President of the Council. The only time I mentioned the Home Secretary was to say that he was a man of such integrity and his conscience was so tender that he had been slinking around the House for weeks with a look of extreme guilt on his face because of the job the Cabinet had given him to do. I mentioned the Lord Chancellor favourably, because he had advanced an idea which has been brushed aside, that control should be vested in local people.
I have had no satisfactory answer to the information I was given when I visited Carlisle; namely, that the brewers were up looking round the premises—casing the joint, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) would say—shortly after the General Election. This calls for some explanation, because if the system has been running for 55 years, why a week after a General Election do people appear?
It is unfortunate that in the short time I have been a Member this is the second Bill that I have seen through all its


stages which has dismantled the work of the Labour Government. The other was that dismantling the Land Commission. The Government had given a clear commitment that they would do that if elected; but there is no such justification for this Bill.
The Under-Secretary again spoke about the Bill's removing the restriction on sale and supply by the Secretary of State—in other words, breaking up the State monopoly and removing restrictions on freedom of choice. But there are very serious dangers of monopoly in the brewing trade. In my constituency 94 per cent. of the public houses are controlled by Courage. At one time I thought the Government might be sympathetic towards dealing with that situation, but the resolution is weakening.
The Bill is inadequate because it does not give us the guarantees we have sought for the staff or the conditions for sale to tenants which will ensure that free houses can be created. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Kinsey) is anxious to see a situation in which people will be able to establish free houses and keep them free, but there is no guarantee of that. Those public houses may well fall into the brewers' hands, and that is undesirable because it will simply replace one monopoly with another.
With regard to the disposal of property, Clause 4 talks about moneys being paid out on expenses incurred. The Under-Secretary has gone out of his way to try to furnish us with information on certain points throughout the passage of the Bill. He spoke tonight of the commission which would be paid to the estate agents, varying between 2¼ and 2¾ per cent. I have not had an opportunity to check this, but I suspect that it is very near the going rate. With an enormous block of property for which purchasers do not have to be sought, when there are no overheads over and above what the estate agent's business is already carrying, and with a number of ready-made sales, we hope, to sitting tenants, that figure may well be excessive. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will excuse us if we press him on the matter on another occasion.
Although the hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to be helpful, we have been

handicapped by a serious lack of information about beer. The price of beer means nothing unless we know something about the tax paid on it.
If the Bill has done one thing it has focused attention on these matters. Whilst we may be dissatisfied about the whole question of the disposal of State management, at least the Bill has brought to the surface a number of issues that we can pursue at other times.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Idris Owen: We have come almost to the end of a long series of debates on the Bill. We have had many Committee sittings in which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has spoken. Once he spoke in a fascinating way for almost an hour and a half about the specific gravity of beer. There were more important issues at stake in the country. What has interested me more than anything is the magnificent rearguard action by Labour hon. Members in fighting off the Government's decision to denationalise the State pubs. They have spoken eloquently, with sincerity and grim determination, but let us not overlook the fact that the argument is basically philosophical. It is really ideological.
We are here engaged in the ritual slaughter of one of the sacred cows of the Socialist State. Hon. Members opposite will fight to the death to restrict us from doing so. If I were a Socialist supporting the Marxist philosophy, I would fight equally hard. But our philosophy is different. We believe in a free enterprise capitalist State, and we say that it is no part of the Government to be running licensed premises in Carlisle or Scotland. We, as supporters of free enterprise, of consumer choice, believe that the great divide here is whether it shall be the State or whether it shall be free enterprise. We are quite happy to allow the public to judge whether they prefer the State to provide their beer or whether there should be freedom of choice through the capitalist system.
The hon. Member for Fife, West has been honest and sincere—more sincere than most. He is true to his principles. He is an out-and-out Socialist and says that he will not be satisfied until he sees all the pubs and licensee premises nationalised.

Mr. William Hamilton: The brewers.

Mr. Owen: The brewers as well. One advantage which we have on this side is that we face the economic facts of life of the Carlisle system. There is no gainsaying the fact that economically it has not been a success. But that is not surprising, because very few State enterprises are economically successful. The monumental losses sustained by many State enterprises have caused great economic problems, and it is not surprising to find the State system in Carlisle an abysmal failure financially.
One aspect has not been mentioned in the debate. I ascertained in my visit to the brewery that it had a bottling plant 17 years old and could not afford to replace it. I was told by the management that it would cost almost £350,000 to replace it. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) would be good enough to inform me how long his brewery's bottling plants last. I am sure they are not that age. But this one in Carlisle has had to be retained for 17 years. It was breaking down. The engineers were having to work frantically on it.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is this liability in addition to the £482,000 capital commitment the brewery showed on its last accounts?

Mr. Owen: Indeed it is. The brewery did not even introduce a new bottling plant in the estimates because the resources are not there. If the State management used all the slender resources it had to redevelop its licensed premises, it would find itself without adequate resources. The scheme has not been the success that hon. Members opposite would like to suggest. What they are dismayed about is that these premises are about to pass from the State to private hands. That is the great divide. Let us be honest about it. I do not admire hon. Members opposite any the less for their case, but let us recognise the issue for what it is. This is the State sacred cow and it is being sacrificed. It has never given very much milk, and when cows do not give very much milk they are slaughtered.

Mr. William Hamilton: Not if they are sacred.

Mr. Owen: Another interesting point which has not emerged in the debate is the capacity of the brewery, which is 1,500 barrels a week. It is down to 1,000 barrels a week. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) has not: mentioned why this is so. The truth of the matter is that there has been a considerable growth in Carlisle, and the peripheral areas, of working men's clubs, political clubs, social clubs, British Legion clubs. The brewers have been able to offer a facility that the resources of the State management scheme could never offer and that is loans for the construction of clubs at relatively low rates of interest, almost free of interest—[Interruption.]—Yes, I know in my own constituency that my local football club got a £30,000 loan free of interest from a brewery company and this has happened in Carlisle. The result is that the management scheme has lost the retail outlets.

Mr. Michael Cocks: The hon. Member is a fair man. Would he not accept this point, which must have been put to him when he visited the brewery, that if there had been no restriction on the area in which the brewery could sell perhaps it would have been working to full capacity?

Mr. Owen: Conversely I would say that if it had not enjoyed its monopoly position since 1915 it would have been in an even worse position than it is now. It had the disadvantage of restriction but the supreme advantage of monopoly and it did not prosper as a result. It is in a parlous financial state when we add things up. No one will cavil at the expressions of opinion from the hon. Member for Carlisle because his constituents will always support him as they are getting cheap beer. Anyone who can get cheap beer at the expense of the taxpayer is bound to support him. I believe that the majority of people will breathe a sigh of relief when this operation has been denationalised.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: We are moving towards closing time and I want to say a few pleasant sentences before I come to the subject matter of my speech.
I want to congratulate the Ministers for their courtesy and fairness, sometimes


under provocation. It is not their fault that they were given this filthy job to do. They expect that. They are in the same position as the council dustman and the sewer-man: the council dustman must sweep the streets, while the sewer-man has to go down into the sewers and look at all kinds of things including French letters. I felt that the hon. Gentleman was trying to give this Bill a cloak of respectability. He reminded me of a prostitute in Piccadilly protesting her purity, virginity and morality. She too has got a job to do. One looks around Piccadilly and sees this sort of thing, although I have not had the experience of enlisting their support and I could not distinguish one from another.
Listening to the Minister this afternoon was like listening to a parish priest who was intent on doing something for the good of the country. He rather chided us about the wild allegations we had made about corruption. The last thing in the world I would want to do would be to charge the Minister with corruption, on this or any other matter. But I should like to put a few facts on the record and let them speak for themselves. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) has acknowledged that he is a director of Allied Breweries. We have not been told what his fee is for doing the job, but whatever it is he is overpaid. I should not like to ask him what it was, but the people who are drinking his beer are paying his fees, and they are not getting their money's worth.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) owns El Vino, which the fellows up in the Press Gallery frequent and no doubt patronise adequately. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) is the chairman and managing director of the Costa Brava Wine Company and another wine agency. The vice-chairman of the 1922 Committee, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), is a director of the Ferndale Brewery Co. Ltd., which is a subsidiary of Webb's, which is part of the vast Charrington group. I understand that since 1971 he has been a director of Bass Charrington Sales Ltd. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) is the chairman of Bass Charrington and a director of the Bass Charrington Brewery. The

hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is the ex-adviser to the Distillers Group.
I merely put these facts on the record. They are all perfectly honourable gentlemen. When the Secretary of State for the Environment came to office, the first firm smack of government he gave us was to sanction the building of the Whitbread Brewery in the green belt in Lancashire. He did that for perfectly honourable reasons, and I would not suggest that these were corrupt practices. They are all hon. Gentlemen, and that is why we call them so.
The people in the country are bound to ask why the Prime Minister, who said that his policies must be judged in a five-year Parliament, should choose in a first year to flog off a few State pubs and hotels to the paymasters of the Tory Party. It might be pure coincidence. We all have our priorities and our philosophies.
The philosophy of the Tory Party was explained by Winston Churchill many years ago. In Committee I quoted a speech made by a remarkable man, Jimmy Hudson, who represented Ealing, North, whom many of us remember for his ardent temperance, on the same basis as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), and equally provocative and talkative. Speaking on the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill, 1952, he referred to the venal and furtive pressure of the liquor trade on pliant Government, particularly Conservative Governments. He said it was a well-known story and that nobody had commented upon it more vigorously than the then Leader of the Conservative Party, who was Winston Churchill. He referred to a speech made by Winston Churchill in Nottingham, in which he said:
As for interference the Tory Party had no policy except to make sure of the public house vote.
Speaking of Mr. Balfour's Government, Winston Churchill said:
They had a capacity to sneer at every philanthropic enthusiasm while flinging sops from time to time to brewers and others of their friends.
In another speech in Manchester, Winston Churchill referred to


The open hand of the Exchequer and the open door of the public house",
and spoke of:
a brewers dray blocking the road to progress.
These are not my words, but the words of the most distinguished Tory that ever lived—and they are words about the Tory Party.
We have now got to the closing stages of this Bill. The champagne corks will be popping in Upper Clyde tonight; 120,000 unemployed in Scotland will be dancing outside the labour exchanges now that this Bill is to go on the Statute Book. The "better tomorrow" is just around the corner in Gretna and Cromarty. The Government are ending this scheme which has run for 60 years. Even if it might not have done very well in terms of profits, which is the only yardstick by which the Tory Party measures success, it did not do any harm and was very popular in the areas in which it operated. Nothing has been done by any Government about this scheme for 60 years. It is only now that this action is taken by the present Government, which is the most wicked, most inefficient, most unpopular, and I believe the most corrupt for a century or more. This is why they have brought in this Bill.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: We have had a very short run on this Bill. In Committee Conservative members were reluctant to come to the support of their Ministers. I have never known such reluctant legislators in my life. They had voted on Second Reading with a certain amount of enthusiasm, probably greater than that of the Home Secretary; but when it came to Committee, they could not even turn out to save the Government on the issue of how many mornings we were to sit. The whole of the time they left it to their hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office and the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture at the Scottish Office to carry on.
I should like to have seen serving on that Committee the representative of the Allied Breweries since he is so knowledgeable about these matters. Had he been on the Committee, I am sure we would have had some fertile discussions and

arguments. He could have conducted his investigations into my ideas about the brewers and the trade rather than have left his remarks until these later stages. It was quite a relief today to see him expanding a little bit, but we heard very little new.
Today we heard retold by the Under-Secretary of State the Second Reading speech which had been delivered by his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Carlisle: It was a good speech.

Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary of State cannot say anything else, since he was repeating the same arguments that had been put forward by the Home Secretary, though not in such a complete form. However this is not Second Reading. This is Third Reading. We are concerned with what is in this Bill. We are not dealing with the kind of stuff that we heard put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey); at one stage we even managed to get on the slopes of Ben Wyvis. The hon. Gentleman talked about anything but what is in the Bill. I want to talk about what is in the Bill and by implication what is not in the Bill, and I shall state our reasons for voting against it.
Clause 1 is one of the most ridiculously-worded Clauses I have ever read in a Statute. We tried to convey our feelings about this provision in Committee but the Government, who fielded a second eleven, were determined at the start to resist even small drafting Amendments. When one reads Clause 1, one sees such expressions as "shall be abolished" and "is hereby repealed". It is just a bit of legal nonsense. It is the kind of provision that one expects to see in a consequential Schedule.
Then we come to the real meat in Clause 2, which deals with the way in which the assets are to be disposed of, though I defy anyone to discover from it what is to be done. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer, and he must know that what is said by a Minister by way of interpretation of a Statute is not accepted in a court of law. If he does not know that, someone should tell him. What counts is what is in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which should lead the hon. Member for Perry Barr or anyone else to describe what is to be


done about the disposal of these assets as
fair, just and beyond suspicion.
We tried to spare the hon. and learned Gentleman the embarrassment of it being left to him and to the Secretary of State for Scotland to dispose of these assets as they thought expedient in the public interest. The hon. and learned Gentleman can tell us as much as he likes about what he intends to do about it. But when, eventually, these assets are sold, if they are sold, they may be used for any other purpose, the presumption being that they may not be sold. Everything depends on the manoeuvres of those who want to get the best bargain. The brewers will not necessarily meet any prices, and it must not be forgotten that there is nothing to stop them ganging up. The embarrassment will be that of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is not found possible to realise even what was suggested in 1967 as a tentative valuation. I think that it was £4·8 million.
The Bill says that the Secretaries of State must sell, but what will happen if they sell in the way about which we have been told? Imagine a single city where every public house has to be sold. The Minister tells us that it will all be wrapped up within a year. That is what we should be talking about on Third Reading. How can he give any guarantees to this House or to the country that this is the right way to get the best price for the assets?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Corruption.

Mr. Ross: Over 340 properties, including 170 public houses and the like are all to be sold in virtually the same period. What a buyer's market that will be.
We have not been given any indication about whether they will be sold to one buyer. Anyone reading what the Home Secretary said on Second Reading will realise that this is not ruled out. He spoke about the difficulties of trying to run a concession like this within a limited geographical area. The implication of that is that it will be controlled by someone who has a very much wider area. We are told that one of the reasons for the Bill is to break up a monopoly. However, what may happen is that we exchange one

monopoly for another, and one which has just been condemned by the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The brewers say, "We are only here for the beer—and the money".

Mr. Ross: The Monopolies Commission had this to say in its Report on the Supply of Beer:
We conclude that the conditions we have found to prevail operate and may be expected to operate against the public interest.
The people of Carlisle will be delighted to know that they are to have wished upon them a system of beer supply which the Monopolies Commission says is acting and is likely to act against the public interest. That is for a fairly obvious reason. This Report is now out of date. My figures are not as good as they should be. The figures given here, on the then up-to-date information, show that in England and Wales 86 per cent. of all public houses were controlled by the brewers. The figure for Scotland—but it is increasing—is 14 to 16 per cent. The Report also states that in Scotland the brewers' ownership of licensed houses has increased somewhat in recent years.
There is nothing in the Bill which can give any satisfaction to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) or justify the plaudits of the hon. Member for Perry Barr that we shall see independent thriving management by local people. Far from it.
Apparently we shall get service which we have not had before. In The Times of Monday, 26th April, concern is expressed about beer and its quality as a result of the Bill to which the Tories are hoping to give a Third Reading tonight. This is the kind of satisfaction which we shall get in Carlisle, Gretna and the North of Scotland:
'The public will bloody well drink what we tell them to drink ', a brewery representative is alleged to have told one of his company's licensees not so long ago.
I have never seen that denied—

Mr. Ron Lewis: Honest government !

Mr. Ross: —and we have the Monopolies Commission to back it up.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Allied Breweries.

Mr. Ross: The Minister has climbed on his high horse and said that right


from the start we have made wild allegations and smear after smear. What we have said is very tame compared with what was said by Winston Churchill about the conspiracy of the Tory Party and the brewers. One of my hon. Friends has saved me the trouble of quoting what he said. But the Tory Party has become coy about it. In 1916 when this was going through the House, the then Home Secretary, Lloyd George, was constantly interrupted by the then Member for the town in which I live, Ayr, Sir George Younger. He said that he was speaking for the brewers. He was rather proud to be speaking for them. He made no attempt to conceal it. But now that does not exist. We have this long list of contributions to the Tory Party. I think that Allied was very stingy.

Mr. Ron Lewis: It was probably the first instalment.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) should be ashamed of himself. No wonder he is still on the back benches. It is a mere £1,000 a year, unless Allied's subsidiaries are feeding it in elsewhere. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should appreciate that they have to live with their connection with this trade.
I am sure that the Home Secretary did not want the Bill. We would never have introduced such a Bill. It is interesting to note that in the year 1952, when the Tories took office after the 1945–51 Labour Government, one of their first acts was to take away similar powers from the new town corporations. How responsive they are. It may be a coincidence, of course, that what they do is what the brewers want.
They have been wrong about the Bill. I remind them of what Lloyd George said on 29th April, 1915. [Interruption.] What is wrong with that?
Every Government that has ever touched alcohol has burnt its fingers in its lurid flames."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 29th April, 1915; Vol. 71, c. 864.]
I do not know whether they have any fingers left after the lurid flames into which they have been putting them on the Clyde, Rolls-Royce, and everywhere else. This is not one of the Bills of which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can be very proud. It really is sad that a party facing all the problems

that it is at the moment should race in with this Measure. Nothing will convince us that it was brought in, not because the right hon. Gentleman wanted to introduce it, but because of outside pressures on his party.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), but he said very little that was new. The only small bit of extra interest that he brought to the debate was to be found in the geography lesson that he gave us, but even then he was wrong, because he put Ben Wyvis in the wrong place. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to look at the map. He will see that the boundary of the State management district goes through the summit of Ben Wyvis. If he looks at the map, he will see which side of Ben Wyvis he is talking about. As usual, he finds himself talking on the wrong side.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke this evening about the Government's second eleven taking part in the Committee stage of the Bill, and about how they were unable to accept any of the arguments put to them. All I can say is that, in the face of the third-rate arguments presented to us, it is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman had so little success.
Tonight we have heard little more than the gramophone record that we heard during the whole of the Committee stage, almost regardless of what Amendments were being considered, or what Clause was being debated. We heard the same record on Report too. The only good thing tonight—and I welcomed it—was that we had with us the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), and one or two others. The gramophones were changed, but I wish that the record could have been changed, too.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) began his speech very courteously, and thanked all those who had taken part in the Committee stage of the Bill. May I, from this side of the House, express my thanks to right hon. and hon. Members opposite for their help during a long Committee stage. We may have differed in our views, but we at least learned to respect each other's point of view, despite what the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William


Hamilton) may say, and I think that this evening we have all obtained a considerable amount of enjoyment from the debate.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Talk about the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should have been here for the Report stage. We should have liked to hear him. I shall be delighted to talk about what is in the Bill.
There is one matter that is important to the Bill, and I know that it is of considerable interest to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), because he raised it, and that is the position of the staff in the State management districts. I repeat the tribute that has been paid by my right hon. and hon. Friends to the hard work and loyalty of those who have worked in the State management scheme. Nothing in the Bill is a reflection on the part they have played. I repeat, also, the assurances that were given in Committee, and on Report, that those who become redundant will be entitled to proper compensation and redundancy payments.
Having said that, I now come to the question of jobs. Unfortunately, we have been exposed to arguments of extravanganza and exaggeration. If hon. Members really wanted to be believed, they could have put their arguments more moderately.
I would congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, West on introducing one new set of so-called facts. One only has to imagine our casting the same aspersions on his hon. Friends who happen to have connections with the trade union movement to realise how completely out of place his remarks were. They were intended as smear and innuendo.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock criticised some of my hon. Friends—he might well have criticised some of his own—for not dealing with what was in the Bill. He spent three minutes on what was in the Bill and then reverted to a Second Reading speech. I am delighted to deal with what is in the Bill. One effect of the Bill which has been ignored by hon. Members opposite is to restore to local licensing justices the freedom to work in the way that such justices

work in the rest of the country. The Bill is about freedom. In this important matter, all licensing decisions should be taken locally by those directly concerned.
One thing which has been uppermost in the minds of hon. Members opposite in their desire to keep this power in the hands of the Secretary of State is the philosophy that Whitehall and St. Andrew's House know best and that local people cannot be trusted to carry out their proper functions. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) was right. The nub of the Labour Party's opposition to the Bill is that we are slaughtering one of their sacred cows. It is so outmoded that it is no longer sacred, and when something is no longer needed, there is nothing ritual about its slaughter—

Mr. Ron Lewis: Mr. Ron Lewis rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Lewis: Answer the question.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am delighted to answer.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is taking a long time.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was asked to deal with what is in the Bill and I am doing so. I am delighted to come to the hon. Member's point. The important thing is that merely because we are restoring freedom to local licensing authorities hon. Members oppose the Bill—

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Lewis rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I now come to the hon. Member's point. He asked me whether we shall be reporting to the House throughout the restoration of freedom in these areas—

Mr. Lewis: And on the progress of the sale and the valuation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I repeat what we said in Committee, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will report to the House as necessary—

Mr. William Hamilton: What does that mean?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: —in the course of the disposal of the assets, and certainly at the end, when the disposal is completed.

Mr. Lewis: There is nothing about that in the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I certainly give that assurance.
One question has remained completely unanswered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was totally ignored by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I refer to the intentions of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the unlikely event of the Labour Party being returned to power. His right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said on 20th April last:
We shall not be bound … by our conventional basis of compensation".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1971; Vol. 815, c. 985.]
Throughout the Committee stage, on Report and at this stage the right hon. Gentleman who has been leading for the Opposition has consistently ignored this question.

Mr. Lewis: Nor was this Bill in the Conservative manifesto.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise that the language used by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East on that occasion not only put at risk the valuation which might be placed on these properties—and in that he behaved irresponsibly—but indicated that his party would behave in a disreputable way at a future date.

Mr. Lewis: Carry on. The lion. Gentleman has only three minutes to last out.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Another main advantage of the Bill lies in the fact that we are dealing with areas in Scotland which have tremendous potential for tourist development. In the southwest of Scotland, with the M6 motorway

Division No. 395.]
AVES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Biffen, John
Bullus, Sir Eric


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biggs-Davison, John
Burden, F. A.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Blaker, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Body, Richard
Carlisle-, Mark


Astor, John
Boscawen, Robert
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Bossom, Sir Clive
Channon, Paul


Awdry, Daniel
Bowden, Andrew
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Braine, Bernard
Churchill, W. S.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bray, Ronald
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Batsford, Brian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Clegg, Walter


Bell, Ronald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cooke, Robert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Coombs, Derek


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bryan, Paul
Cooper, A. E.


Benyon, W.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Cordle, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buck, Antony
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

way having been completed as far as Gretna, with the development of roads within Scotland and with the increasing number of people from the Midlands of England looking for places in which to spend their leisure time, there is tremendous tourist growth potential in the south-west of Scotland. This is potential which the local people will be glad to grasp, and what is true of south-west Scotland is equally true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) said, of other areas. I have no doubt that the people of Scotland will be glad to take advantage of the opportunities which this Bill offers.

The State management scheme was introduced as an experiment. It has been going on for a great many years. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have produced no evidence to show that on grounds of financial viability or moral liability—from the point of drunkenness and so on—it should continue.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite are living in the past. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock had to quote Lloyd George in 1916 in an attempt to justify his case. We have been listening to this antediluvian monster from Kilmarnock but, like all monsters, he belongs to the picture books. His monstrosities are out of date and, like this experiment in State management, all his remarks are of no effect whatever. All his antics, moanings and, to borrow a word from the hon. Member for Fife, West, outpourings belong to the museum and have no relevance to Britain and Scotland today.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 251.

Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Curran, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmond, Robert


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dixon, Piers
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridsdale, Julian


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Drayson, G. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dykes, Hugh
Lampton, Antony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rost, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Royle, Anthony


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Longden, Gilbert
Sharples, Richard


Fidler, Michael
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Luce, R. N.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Simeons, Charles


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, R. A.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; 'Lmington)


Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Speed, Keith


Fowler, Norman
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Spence, John


Fox, Marcus
McMaster, Stanley
Sproat, lain


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin
Stokes, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Madel, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maginnis, John E.
Sutcliffe, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Tapsell, Peter


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gorst, John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Green, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger
Trew, Peter


Gummer, Selwyn
Molyneaux, James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gurden, Harold
Money, Ernle
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Waddington, David


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mudd, David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Haselhurst, Alan
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wall, Patrick


Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Airey
Walters, Dennis


Havers, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ward, Dame Irene


Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Higgins, Terence L,
Osborn, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wilkinson, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Holt, Miss Mary
Peel, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian
Woodnutt, Mark


Hornby, Richard
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Worsley, Marcus


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Younger, Hn. George


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pink, R. Bonner



Howell, David (Guildford)




Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)




Hunt, John
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Jasper More.

Abse, Leo
Golding, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Allen, Scholefield
Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Ashley, Jack
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamling, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Barnes, Michael
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King


Barnett, Joel
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Beaney, Alan
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O' Malley, Brian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oram, Bert


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orbach, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Hilton, W. S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Paget, R. T.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bradley, Tom
Huckfield. Leslie
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-uponTyne, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest G.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Janner, Greville
Probert, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rankin, John


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
John, Brynmor
Richard, Ivor


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roper, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kerr, Russell
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'le-u-Tyne)


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Lawson, George
Sillars, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman. Julius


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Skinner, Dennis


Deakins, Eric
Leonard, Dick
Small, William


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lestor, Miss Joan
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Spearing, Nigel


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stallard, A. W.


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loughlin, Charles
Strang, Gavin


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ellis, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tinn, James


Evans, Fred
Mackie, John
Tomney, Frank


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Torney, Tom


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Maclennan, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Varley, Eric G.


Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Wallace, George


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Meacher, Michael
Watkins, David


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Weitzman, David


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Garrett, W. E.
Mikardo, Ian
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Millan, Bruce
Whitehead, Phillip


Ginsburg, David

Whitlock, William

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)



Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Woof, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton.


Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

AGRICULTURE (SUPPORT PRICES AND IMPORT DUTIES)

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate together the four Orders in the name of the Minister:
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Beef and Veal) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 802), dated 13th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Milk and Milk Products) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 803), dated 13th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 801), dated 14th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 3) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 851), dated 20th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.
and also the following six Prayers:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Price Stability of Imported Products (Levy Arrangements) (Beef and Veal) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 854), dated 21st May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) (Beef and Veal) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 855), dated 21st May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Price Stability of Imported Products (Levy Arrangements) (Milk, Milk Products) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 856) dated 21st May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) (Milk, Milk Products) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 857), dated 21st May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be annulled.
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) Cereals Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 632), dated 7th April 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be withdrawn.
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Beef and Veal) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 473), dated 19th March 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be withdrawn.

I also understand that it is the wish of the Opposition that the Division should take place on the first Order.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that there are 10 Orders and Prayers to be debated together, all of which have real implications to the great mass of people. We have an hour and a half in which we are expected to debate then?. May I have a Ruling from you that in the interests of the House they should not be taken in the way proposed, and that if we do not have debates on each individually, at least later in the Session they should be grouped in smaller groups.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is a matter for me. I have simply said what I understood was the wish of the House. I think that technically if objection in taken they can be debated individually.

Mr. Loughlin: I am in some difficulty. I do not want to be awkward just for the sake of being awkward. I have been in the House for 11 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I want to deal with the matter as expeditiously as I can with justice. I object to the taking together of 10 Orders and Prayers most of which involve an increase in the cost of living, and I respectfully submit that we should debate them one at a time.

Mr. Speaker: In the circumstances, I ask the Minister to move the first Order.

10.14 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Beef and Veal) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 802), dated 13th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
I think it would be for the convenience of the House—

Mr. Loughlin: No.

Mr. Prior: I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if at the same time we discussed the three other Orders and the six Prayers. All four Orders are concerned with changes in


agricultural support and can best be looked at together. In this respect, I am moving all four. I understand that it will also be convenient to hon. Members on both sides if we discuss at the same time the four Prayers relating to beef and veal and milk and milk products and the two Motions relating to cereals and eggs.
The Orders are complicated and very important, and I think hon. Members will wish me to make a full explanation. I hope that hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin)—will forgive me in doing so.
The Orders give effect to the interim levy schemes, discussion of which has been taking place with our overseas suppliers, as we announced last March. We then announced that schemes would be introduced to come into effect at the beginning of July to modify the arrangements for cereals and to introduce arrangements for beef and veal, mutton and lamb and milk products other than butter and cheese. The schemes represent a first step in the modification of our agricultural support system which the Government have always regarded as of great importance and to be carried out whether or not we joined the E.E.C. We made clear before we came to office that we intended to make this change as part of our general economic strategy.
We were determined to reduce and render less open-ended the Exchequer's commitment to agricultural support and so make reductions in taxation possible. This could be done only by making agricultural producers' return from the market more stable, which in its turn demanded some means to prevent low-priced imports from undermining the market. Our ultimate aim is to ensure—whether in or outside the E.E.C.—that our farmers have the opportunity to secure an increasing part of their return from the market and also a greater incentive to market their produce in the most efficient way.
The schemes that are before the House this evening are no more than a first step, but, though the proposed levies on the beef and cattle side will mainly act as market stabilisers, leaving the deficiency payment system still as the main method of farmers' returns, they do

represent a significant move in the right direction.
In order to bring these schemes into effect, it is necessary to make a series of Orders under Section 1 of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964. The first Orders specify the commodities for which minimum import prices and import levies are to apply.
Before the House for approval today are such Orders for beef and veal and for milk and certain milk products. The beef and veal Order is No. 802, the milk and milk products Order is No. 803. They came into operation on 20th May. As soon as these Orders were in operation, Ministers could proceed to make two further Orders setting out respectively the levels of minimum import prices for the specified commodity and the arrangements for charging levies for the purpose of sustaining the minimum prices. At the same time, certain modifications have to be made to the fatstock guarantee arrangements, and the necessary Order is also before the House this evening. That Order is No. 801.
The Import Duties Order is concerned with the introduction of corresponding arrangements for mutton and lamb. The Order is made by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, under Sections 1, 2 and 13 of the Import Duties Act, 1958. The Order imposes specific import duties on imports of mutton and lamb in three stages. That Order is No. 851.
I should now like to say a little about each of the Orders and schemes, starting with those for meat. Our own farmers provide about 80 per cent. of our beef and veal and some 40 per cent. of our mutton and lamb. Any arrangements to give higher market prices to our own producers must clearly take account of both home and overseas sources of supply. Consequently, at the same time as we are introducing levy arrangements on imported meat, we are making certain modifications to the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. The purpose of these modifications is to encourage and persuade farmers to market as efficiently as they can to get the best price from the market and to watch it closely. These complementary changes need to be considered as part of the total régime for these products.
Three Orders have been laid before the House dealing with the levy arrangements for beef and veal. Apart from the specifying Order, there is one laying down weekly scales of minimum import prices for fat cattle and for various categories of beef and veal during the period July, 1971, to March, 1972. That is Order No. 855. A third Order prescribes the method of determining and charging levies on fat cattle, beef and veal. That is Order No. 854. These Orders provide the statutory framework of the scheme, and I am sure the House will want to know how the arrangements will operate in practice.
There is no world market price for beef, and we have, therefore, decided to link the minimum import prices and levies for beef and veal to the average price of fat cattle in our own markets. I announced on 17th March that for fat cattle in 1971–72 there would be an annual target indicator price of £10.35 per live cwt. From this figure a scale of weekly minimum import prices for fat cattle has been constructed for the period July, 1971, to March, 1972. This scale varies seasonally in accordance with the seasonal scale under the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. Minimum import price scales for various categories of beef and veal have been derived from the scale for fat cattle by means of standard coefficients expressing existing price relationships. They are conversion tables to convert from liveweight to deadweight.

Mr. Loughlin: We know that. Get on with it.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt any more. He has wasted enough time already.
If in any week the estimated average market price of fat cattle in the United Kingdom falls below the minimum import price of fat cattle for that week, levies will be chargeable on imports of fat cattle and the various categories of imported beef and veal in the following week. There will be special arrangements applying to imports from the Irish Republic for reasons that I will mention later.
The levies on beef and veal will be variable from week to week; they should, therefore, quickly reflect changes in market circumstances. Equally, while the average market price remains above the target indicator prices—as at

present—levies will not be operative. They will be applied only if market prices fall below the target price.
The arrangements for mutton and lamb are rather less complex. Because of the nature of the trade in these products, the Government decided that a flat-rate tariff would be more appropriate, as well as easier to administer, than a variable levy scheme. The Order imposes duties on imports of mutton and lamb, other than those from the Irish Republic, as from 1st July, 1971. The rates of duty on lamb set out in the Order are equivalent to Id. a lb. from 1st July, and 2d. per lb. from 1st January to 30th June, 1972, and 3d. thereafter. Imports of bone-in mutton carcases will be at half these rates on account of their lower unit value. The introduction of the duty is being phased in three stages so as to allow the market to adapt gradually to the new situation.
As I have mentioned, imports of beef and veal and of mutton and lamb from the Irish Republic have been excluded from these new arrangements. This is because of the close integration of the cattle industries of the two countries and the arrangements made under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. But the Government of the Irish Republic have agreed that when our levies are in force on imports from third countries their subsidies on carcase meat will be adjusted in line with adjustments in the rate of deficiency payments under our Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. In other words, if our subsidy is abated as a result of the average market price falling below the target indicator price, the Irish will abate their subsidies in the same way.
I now turn to the Order relating to the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme, No. 801. The purpose of this Order is to introduce the changes in the guarantee arrangements for cattle and sheep which were announced in the Annual Review White Paper published on 17th March, 1971.
The seasonal scales of weekly standard prices for both fat cattle and fat sheep will remain under the new arrangements. In addition, there will be a scale of weekly target indicator prices for fat cattle determined at a fixed amount below the standard prices. It will be at the same level as the weekly minimum import prices for fat cattle. For fat sheep, there will be a scale of weekly estimated


prices established at a fixed amount below the standard prices and reflecting the seasonal pattern of market prices.
Deficiency payments for fat cattle will represent the difference between the standard price or guarantee price and either the market price or the target indicator price, whichever of these two is the higher. When the average market price is above the target indicator price, the full deficiency is paid. When it is below, the deficiency payment is restricted to the difference between the target indicator price and the guarantee or standard price. Turning to sheep, if for instance, in any week of the present fatstock year the average market price of sheep falls more than 1½p a lb. below the estimated price, a corresponding reduction will be made in the deficiency payment up to a maximum reduction of 1½p a lb. The position for sheep is slightly different from that for beef and for veal.
The Order abolishes the scales of abatements and supplements for fat cattle and fat sheep but provides for end-of-year residual payments to fat-stock producers. There may be times when the price is above the target indicator price. At other times, the market price may be below the target indicator price, in which case the end-of-year payment is made to all producers. The new arrangements will ensure that if the average market price for the year as a whole is above the target indicator price for the year, producers of fat cattle collectively will receive at least the full guarantee for the year.

Mr. Loughlin: How long does the right hon. Gentleman have to take in this short debate, in view of the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker before the debate began? The whole of his speech is out of order.

Mr. Prior: It is important. I am trying to be as quick and yet as courteous as I can in explaining the Orders properly. They are important. I am not trying to detain the House any more than I need.
If, on the other hand, the average market price for the year is below the target indicator price, any end-of-year payment will be reduced by the amount by which the average market price falls short of the target indicator price.

Corresponding arrangements will operate for fat sheep.
Finally, the Order provides that for 1971–72 there may exceptionally be two residual payments. This is because the new arrangements are being introduced after the 1971–72 fatstock year has begun. The first payment would be for the period up to and including 4th July when the present arrangements will continue to be applied. For the remainder of the fatstock year the new arrangements will be adopted for calculating any end-of-year payment.
I now come to the arrangements concerning milk and milk products. The specifying Order is on similar lines to that for beef and veal, but the background differs from that for meat. For many years there has been no subsidy on milk. The Government retain control over the retail price of ordinary pasteurised milk, but this price has to be calculated so that, taking one year with another, the consumer finances the milk guarantee, the cost of distribution and—more recently—the cost of incentives for the eradication of brucellosis.
About 40 per cent. of our milk—about 1,000 million gallons—goes into the manufacture of milk products such as butter, cheese and condensed milk; the rest goes for liquid milk consumption. The price which the Milk Marketing Boards received for each gallon of milk sold for manufacture into milk products has, until recently, been static or declining. In 1964–65 it was on average rather more than 9p a gallon but in 1969–70 only about 8½p a gallon compared with about 22½p for each gallon of milk sold for liquid consumption, so there is a very wide differential between the price of a gallon of milk sold for liquid consumption and the price of a gallon sold for manufacture. In fact, the differential has been widening in recent years because a large volume of our imports of milk products has been sold below the cost of production.
We have, therefore, decided to extend the system of minimum import prices and levies to milk and certain milk products but not to butter and cheese, which are already the subject of arrangements permitting some regulation of imports. The specifying Order sets out a list of milk products which may become the subject of levy arrangements, and on 1st July


we shall introduce minimum import price arrangements for a number of them—in particular, cream, milk powders and condensed milk. We shall also be taking steps to make sure that the price levels are not undermined by imports of certain related products.
As time is short, I will not describe in detail the individual schemes which we are introducing. I will leave questions on these to my hon. Friend when he comes to wind up the debate.
During the last year, there has been a great change in world markets for milk products. The butter surplus in Western Europe has disappeared and world market prices have markedly strengthened. As a result, the price levels which will prevail here after the introduction of the minimum import price scheme are likely to be very little, if at all, above present world prices. At current price levels they will not, therefore, impose any appreciable extra cost on the user industries. But the situation could change, and the scheme will serve to insure the milk producer against falls in price.
As I have explained, our current market prices reflect broadly the availability of the specified products in world markets. For example, the domestic price of skimmed milk powder, one of the more important commodities covered by this scheme, is now freely established at about £160 a ton.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am reluctant to intervene, but we are in some confusion. When the debate opened and Mr. Speaker began to put the issues before the House, he asked whether he had the consent of the House to take all the Orders together. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) objected. I understood Mr. Speaker then to say that the Minister must move the Orders individually. Nobody challenged the situation, because we understood that the Minister and one member from our Front Bench would be speaking.
From the conversation which has gone on while the Minister has been speaking, it is apparent that there are to be two Front Bencher speakers from each side, if they catch your eye. This is an intolerable position. We do not know where we are. We do not know whether Mr.

Speaker's Ruling has been accepted. If it has, then the Minister has been out of order for most of his speech and we are simply on the first Order. That is the Order to which the Minister should be addressing his remarks and the only one upon which the House can come to a decision by 11.30 this evening. I take it that that is the position, and that you will confirm it and bring the Minister to order on the Motion before the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): My understanding of the position is that Mr. Speaker ruled that it would be for the convenience of the House, as the issues were inter-linked, for the four Orders to be discussed together, and Mr. Speaker called the first Order, which I shall do in due course when the Minister sits down.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My recollection, and that of many of my Friends, is that Mr. Speaker directed the Minister to move only one Order. The Minister then proceeded to move the other Orders, and if we look at HANSARD we shall see that the Minister moved them.
I ask you to rule that the Minister's speech has been out of order, because he moved all the Motions—so that the rest of his speech must obviously be out of order—and that when we come to vote we shall vote only on the first Order, and the other Government Motions will fall unless they are re-tabled.
If that is not the position, then Parliament has been misled, and the right of hon. Members to debate these matters has been seriously affected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think there is any difference between the two points of view in the House. Mr. Speaker ruled that the four Orders could be discussed together, and then that the Question on the first Order would be proposed in due course, which I have said I shall do in due course when the Minister sits down. That does not preclude the further Orders being moved subsequently.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised the first point of order, and I was under the impression—and I think that HANSARD will bear this out—that Mr. Speaker


ruled in my favour on the submission that I made. I was quite content to be a little tolerant—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think there is any difference between us. I think the hon. Member must have misunderstood what I said. We are at the moment moving one Order, and we are discussing other Orders with it because the matters are inter-linked.

Mr. Loughlin: I want to help the House, because I realise that the House can operate only if there is some degree of agreement between the two sides. What I am asking is that, although a Ruling was given, some consideration ought to be given by the two Front Benches to giving at least a degree of time to back benchers who want to debate the Orders The right hon. Gentleman has spoken at great length on all the Orders, instead of being sensible. I am prepared to be sensible if the right hon. Gentleman is, but if he is not, I am prepared to push my luck.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect the Chair to enter into Front Bench discussions.

Mr. Prior: I am trying to be as quick as I can, and I appreciate that the House wants to discuss these Orders.
One of the more important commodities covered by the scheme, skim milk powder, is now freely established at £160 a ton. The scheme will underpin that price by setting a minimum import price of £157 a ton. Since world prices have now moved more closely into line with the minimum import price under the scheme, there will be no levy to be paid.
To complete the pictude on m.i.p. schemes I should like to refer briefly to the scheme for cereals and eggs. For cereals, the price will go up on average by £3·50 a ton for the period up to the end of July, 1972, and about a further £2·50 for the remainder of that year.
The schemes have been criticised as likely to cause a sharp rise in food prices. This is not likely. The schemes will have a stabilising effect on prices but will not cause any major increases. The House will recall that when I announced these schemes in March I estimated that they

would raise the Food Price Index by about half of 1 per cent. in the period up to July, 1972. I see no reason to change that estimate.
I have already dealt with the price of milk products. As for beef, world shortages and a steady rise in beef prices mean that it is most unlikely that any levy will be paid. The price of fat cattle on the open market is £13 per hundred weight. The m.i.p. at £10·35 provides a safeguard against market weakness.
The effect on prices has been the main criticism of the schemes. But they have also been criticised from the opposite point of view, as likely to be largely ineffective because, in so many cases, market prices are at or above the level of the m.i.p.s. But, even if no levies are imposed, the schemes will still have an important effect. They will support or underpin our market prices and prevent any sudden collapse from undue pressures from imports.
The schemes, including the cereals scheme, which provides for a much more significant measure of market stabilisation than does the existing scheme, relate to about half the farm sales in this country. They therefore provide substantial market support. I therefore commend the schemes to the House. I believe that they represent an important step in the development of a new support policy for agriculture. Taken together, they will do much to create firmer markets and to limit and reduce the cost of agricultural support and give confidence to the agricultural industry.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: These are very important and complex Orders and the concern expressed by my hon. Friends is very natural and will be understood throughout the House. We have heard a very complicated speech by the Minister. I do not know how many of us have really digested everything he said, but I shall try to be a little less complicated.
We had a general debate on agriculture on Tuesday, when we indicated our opposition to these Orders. Their object, put simply, is to impose levies—a tariff—on foodstuffs imported into this country. The Government's case for this policy is two fold—first, that it will relieve the Exchequer, that is the taxpayer, and,


second, that it will protect the British farmer by enabling him to expand and produce more of the commodities which are thereby protected.
Our objection to these levies is that while they may relieve the Exchequer of some liability, they will inevitably increase the cost to the consumer—and this additional cost will be in excess of the rapidly rising cost of foodstuffs which is now going on.
We also take the view that to take these steps outside the Common Market is totally unnecessary. Under the Labour Government we had reasonable control over the imports of food into this country without increasing the price of food. [Interruption.] We had improved the anti-dumping legislation with good results and selective expansion was proceeding at a reasonable rate—subject, as I said on Tuesday, to certain factors over which we had no control, such as the weather and disease.
I wish to be brief in the interests of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Nor am I confident that under the new system farmers across the board will start a period of rapid expansion, which is the Government's argument. I am not alone in my apprehension. The Farmers Weekly, not a radical Socialist periodical, discussing the meat trade and the need for better marketing, said in the issue of 18th June:
The industry would be happier about the new policy if the Minister could explain how, when deficiency payments fade out, farmers can make sure that they get a fair share of end prices".
There is great doubt about that, and that is what we and the farmers are particularly anxious to clarify. It is one of the uncertainties I mentioned in Tuesday's debate.
This means a free market. Agriculture is dropping the pilot, to borrow a maritime metaphor, and this brings me to a matter of practical importance with which neither the Minister nor any other Government spokesman has dealt. We know broadly from the experience of the Common Agricultural Policy that import levies are not effective as a means of price control without intervention buying. We also know that the cost of intervention buying to the E.E.C. has been substantial. If there is no policy for inter-

vention buying and the fall-back guarantee is low, which may be the case, where is the security for the farmer? There is no price guarantee at all.
It is my duty, as the spokesman for the Opposition, to warn the Minister that we could run into very deep trouble unless we have the means to "deal with this aspect of the matter.
The question of the effect of higher prices on demand is a difficult one to consider and precise calculations are impossible. This is why I was always worried about increasing the milk award. I was always afraid of what the effect might be on demand and consumption.
How does the Minister see the rise in prices as a result of this levy? We should be told by how much meat, flour and, consequently, bread prices, are likely to go up, and it would be prudent for the Minister not to under-estimate these rises. He mentioned a rise of one-half of 1 per cent., but I am extremely worried lest he is under-estimating it because if he is we could be heading for deep trouble.
On 22nd June the Financial Times contained an interesting article on which the right hon. Gentleman might wish to comment. It was pointed out that there was normally a reduction in the price of meat between July and December because of increased supplies. This year, due to the levies, the writer suggested, the consumer would not have the benefit of that usual downward trend. In other words, the price of meat will be constant and will go up as a result of the levies.
I understand that the meat trade is arguing that the proposed rate—that is, in Statutory Instrument No. 851—to be imposed by 1st July next year will, at present C.I.F. prices, be about 14 per cent. When transmitted to the retail level, this will mean an increase of about 20 per cent. It is argued that the suggestion that that considerable increase can be passed back to the exporting producer cannot be substantiated. If this is the case, it would therefore be a straight tax on one of the cheaper meat commodities and would affect the lower income groups. We are deeply concerned about this.
I wish to ask a number of questions, which I will put very briefly. First, can the Minister tell us more about the consultations which have taken place on these new arrangements? Have overseas


suppliers, the trade in Britain, and the farmers' unions all been fully consulted, and to what extent have their views been taken into account?
Secondly, can the Minister explain further the arrangements dealing with meat products? Neither the beef nor the lamb schemes cover offals or sheep-meat products, yet veal is included although it is a relatively unimportant item in the trade in this country. Has any special arrangement been made for beef of manufacturing quality?
Thirdly, on the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme, Statutory Instrument No. 801, what will happen about guaranteed prices? Will producers continue to receive them? What will be the position if market prices fall below the average of the target price for the year as a whole. So far as I can see, the arrangements make no provision for the possibility of complete collapse in market prices. We recognise that prices have been at a high level over recent months but this is a real possibility, as we know from our previous experience, and I should have thought a very worrying one.
Fourthly, in framing the scheme, has the Minister borne in mind the special need of hill sheep producers? Are there special provisions for them? As we know, they always tend to be in a weak position, and there is no guarantee of increased end prices getting back to them.
Fifthly, can the Minister give an estimate of the levy revenue which will be derived from the new schemes and from the increase in cereals m.i.ps. Where will this money go? Will it go into the Treasury, nothing more being heard about it? How much will be passed, for example, to the retirement pensioner, as was promised, in supplementary benefit or in some other way? That pledge was given by the Conservative Party when they were in opposition.
Lastly, I notice that the new beef levy scheme provides for the bonding of imported beef. Presumably this is a device to keep supplies off the market. But can the Minister explain how it will operate, and will he say whether he is satisfied that the weight of stocks in cold store will not have a depressing effect on the market?
We are extremely disturbed and unhappy about the Orders. I must invite

my hon. Friends to record our objection in the Lobby tonight. The vote we take must be taken as a vote against all these Orders which are anathema to us and which we regard as completely unnecessary at present.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I will be very quick as many hon. Members wish to speak. The Orders are part of the Government's policy. This is nothing new. When we were in opposition, we said that we were going to do these things and now we are carrying out another of our promises, as we always do.
It seems utterly absurd for the Opposition to bring this before the House tonight when they have themselves used this method in the past on eggs and cereals. It is almost downright dishonest to oppose the Orders. They are prepared to use them themselves but not prepared to support us tonight.
With agriculture, one has only to look at the past to see the problems we have had through heavily subsidised imports sometimes causing chaos. It is absolute nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to say that all was well in the past. We have suffered for years, but the present Government are determined to do something about it.
These Orders will certainly help the consumer.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, they will. A strong agriculture is to the benefit of the consumer. If we had had higher production when the previous Administration were in power, we should not have been short of butter and beef now. That is what is causing high costs to the consumer.
I am rushing through these points as best I can. Agriculture has suffered over the years from this sort of thing. I applaud a Government who have the courage to ensure that imports are regulated. It is to the benefit of agriculture and of the consumer.
Sixthly, every other country—I instance America and the Community countries—has some form of protection in the interests of their agriculture and their consumers. Why should we be left as the only dumping ground in the world? I believe it is wrong that we should be.
Seventhly, there is the need for flexibility. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use this as a regulator. When the


food is needed, he will allow it in. When it is not and we can produce it ourselves, I hope that he will stop it from coming in. That will be to the benefit of the consumer and of agriculture.
Eighthly, let us not weep for butchers. They have moaned enough about this. I have no tears to shed for them.

Mr. Harold Walker: Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster) rose—

Mr. Mills: No, I am in a hurry. Have no tears for the butchers.

Mr. Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that hon. Members with an interest in the subject under debate declare their interest?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Mills: I am trying to hurry so that others can speak. Weep no longer for the butchers. They work a policy of averaging up their prices. This is not always to the advantage of the consumer. When meat is cheap how often is that reflected in the shop. All the protests the butchers are making to me at present are complete nonsense.
I have spoken fast. I apologise for doing so. These are eight reasons why the Government are right, as they always are.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I will not spend too much time on these Orders. It is to be regretted that we have to debate a considerable number of Orders in one and a half hours. The Minister had a prepared speech—I do not blame him; I used prepared speeches when I was a Minister—so when he knew the situation he could not adjust himself.
It is true that these are all technical Orders and they need a lot of explaining, but there was no reason why the Minister should indulge in the Civil Service gobbledegook that he did in the case of each Order. The House wants to know how these Orders will affect the individual. There is bound to be some qualification in the explanation of a

technical Order. The Minister spent all his time on a technical explanation of about 11 Orders which hon. Members on both sides, if the two Front Benches want to speak again—

Mr. John Wells: Then say something.

Mr. Loughlin: I would have said "Goodnight" to the hon. Gentleman if I had known that he wanted to go.
It is difficult to probe in sufficient depth what will happen to prices under the Orders. The Minister said that he did not think that it would involve an increase in prices and that the Orders would have a stabilising effect, or that at the most there would be a rise of ½ per cent. I do not believe a word the Minister says, because it has been estimated from a number of sources that in consequence of these Orders the price of meat will rise by 3p a pound in July of this year. He knows as well as I do that that the cost of living will go up. Bread has been mentioned, and the Minister himself referred to meat. The cost of food has gone up by 10 per cent. mid-June to mid-June; in the 12 months of this miserable, incompetent lot.
Here they are. They have come here tonight and produced a whole series of Orders, knowing full well that the consequence is an increase in the cost of living, and they laughingly say, "We are not going to have any sympathy with the meat traders." It has nothing to do with the meat traders. It is true that meat traders have written to me, but those who have a vested interest will write to Members of Parliament.
I do not mind the hon. Gentleman the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) not being concerned about the meat traders—though they are an integral part of distribution, and even he is concerned about our farmers. He himself is a farmer, although he never says so. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) rightly says that the hon. Gentleman never declares his interest. When my hon. Friend asked him to declare his interest, the hon. Gentleman brushed the request to one side. The hon. Gentleman is a fanner and in a debate of this kind he has a responsibility to declare his interest—

Mr. Peter Mills: Get on with it.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman may get excited, but he will not get me excited. It is no good the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the only people who will be affected by these Orders, the only people who have a legitimate crib, are the meat traders. The housewife will have a crib, and so will the old age pensioners—

Mr. John Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Loughlin: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has just come in out of the Bar, and I will not—

Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is no good the hon. Member telling lies. I have been sitting here since long before he began to speak—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) does not want to say what he has just said, and I very much hope that he will not continue to use that expression about any hon. Member.

Mr. Loughlin: Would it not be in keeping with the tradition of the House when one hon. Member accuses another of lying for the Chair not merely to say that the Chair hopes that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue it, but to ask him to withdraw the expression? Would it not be better if the hon. Member withdrew the mark because it is unparliamentary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Maidstone is trying to do so.

Mr. John Wells: I will be delighted to withdraw the remark if the hon. Gentleman, in his turn, will acknowledge that I have been here since the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Loughlin: I shall not pursue—

Mr. Wells: Then I cannot withdraw my remark—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would wish to withdraw what he said. He can well find an alternative expression if he wishes. But he should withdraw the expression which he used.

Mr. Wells: I am delighted to withdraw, but I wish I could think of some alternative word.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not want to pursue the matter.
When these Orders come into effect and food prices in the shops are increased as a consequence, I know what people will think about it, and about hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: Even at this late hour, I can only be amazed by the audacity of some hon. Members opposite. If my right hon. Friend had taken less time in introducing the Orders, he would have been accused of skimping them. Whatever course my right hon. Friend adopted was bound to meet with the displeasure of some people who have not studied the matter.
I was amazed by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes). It is very strange that he should oppose the Orders because, when he was Minister a very short time ago, his Department, under his instructions, was actively engaged in preparing them. His Ministry officials had gone a long way in the preparation of a meat scheme. Yet tonight he had the barefaced audacity—one can call it nothing else—to deplore not only the meat Order but all the other Orders.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Orders. They represent another example of the Government fulfilling their election pledges at an early date. What we are putting into effect tonight was one of the pledges we gave before polling day and which helped to win us the election. For too long the farmers have been in a straitjacket because they have been unable to get the necessary money for expansion from the Treasury. These Orders, which we shall carry tonight, will put matters right for agriculture and get it again on the road to expansion.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a couple of questions—he was so badgered by some ignorant hon. Members opposite that he probably was unable to say all he wanted to say. Was he at any time in consultation with the National Farmers' Union and the Commonwealth Governments concerned, and, if so, did


they approve the details of the Orders? Secondly, he mentioned the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement. Have representations been made to the Irish Government? We are prepared to play our part in fulfilling the agreement, but they must bring up to the agreed quantities the store cattle exports to this country which are so necessary to many British farmers who rely on the guaranteed quantity of cattle they undertook to supply under the agreement for fattening here.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the energetic way in which he produced these valuable Orders.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: It is typical of the Government that they should try to slip through Orders of vital importance at this time of night. I suppose that the only thing which can be said of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) is that he deserves to be at least a P.P.S. in view of the vigour with which he leaps to defend his right hon. Friend the Minister whenever he presents the indefensible to the House.
I was amazed that the Minister did not say one word about the response of such organisations as the meat importers, meat retailers or of any foreign—[Interruption.] May I have the Minister's attention? He took a long time to make his speech, but he failed to deal with many of the problems of these organisations. He might at least have the courtesy to pay a little attention to the views of the retail and meat importing interests.
The Minister did not tell us what sort of response he had had from other Governments which he had consulted and perhaps even negotiated with during the discussions which must have taken place on these proposals. What was the attitude of the United States to these Orders, and what negotiations did he have with the United States? He kept silent on that matter and on the question of consultation, if indeed he had consultation, with the retail trade.
Some of my hon. Friends may well accuse the Government of implementing, in these Orders, policies which would follow our entry into the European Economic Community. I do not take that view. These Orders which we are

discussing tonight have nothing to do with Britain's entry into the E.E.C. These Orders are a part of the Conservative Government's declared aim of increasing food prices to the British public because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said some time ago, it was his opinion that the British people had been mollycoddled too long on a low price food policy. There is no need for me to give the exact quotation, because he must be familiar with it by now; it has been rammed down his throat enough times. This is part of the declared Tory Government's policy of forcing up prices of basic food commodities to the British public.
The hon. Member for Torrington, in his brief remarks, made some very offensive references to the retail trade who undertake a very useful service which is well received by the British public, in recommending cuts of meat and in advising housewives how to modify the impact of the vicious policy which the Minister is following. I can tell the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend that there were many retail butchers, their wives and 18-year-old children who voted Tory a year ago. They will not vote Tory again, because they are sick of the attitude of the Minister to the service which they provide to the housewife. He has treated them almost with complete contempt.

Mr. Peter Mills: The hon. Member is muddling the butchers with the federation. It is the federation which has opposed this proposal all along the line.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The more the hon. Gentleman attacks respectable retail organisations such as the butchers' organisation, the more he does his party and himself a grave disservice. Many members of the federation were supporters of his party. I am pleased to inform him that he has lost their support at the next election.
A short time ago the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry threatened the motor car industry that he would remove import levies, in the interests, as he saw it, of competition. Now we have the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food putting on import levies in this so-called desire of the Tories for free competition. They cannot have it both ways.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wellbeloved: No, I will not. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.
I advise some of my hon. Friends, who might be getting a little edgy if I should take more than a couple of minutes, that there are on the Paper tonight another three Orders to which they can direct their attention for an hour and a half on each Order. Although my right hon. Friend said that we are to have one vote, which will be indicative of our opposition to all of these Orders, if the Minister and some of his hon. Friends continue in the spirit in which they have so far conducted themselves, they may find themselves here for three times 1½ hours with three votes. If that is what they want, we shall be delighted to oblige them.
Returning to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, one of the points which concern those who have the difficult job of implementing this vicious legislation is the matter of the minimum import price and the levy which will be paid.
As the Minister explained—I hope that everybody grasped his explanation, because it was very complicated—the levy will be calculated on the Thursday of each week, based upon the average live price per cwt. in live auction markets over the previous three days. If that calculated minimum price fell below the minimum import price set out in the order a levy would be charged. What happens if, in the week after the level of the levy has been set, the actual price of imported meat exceeds the average price of the previous week, per live cwt.? Will a levy then be necessary?

Mr. Prior: The levy will go on for that week, but presumably the average market price in the markets to which the hon. Member has referred will rise in the following week, and there will be no need for the levy.

Mr. Wellbeloved: If the Minister studies Order No. 854 he will see that paragraph states that the levy is to be imposed
With a view to maintaining the minimum import price level for any specified commodity 

and so on. If that is so, and if in the week the levy is charged the import price of meat exceeds the minimum import indicator set out, the butchers maintain that since the paragraph clearly indicates that the levy is chargeable only if it is with a view to maintaining the minimum import price it will be illegal for the Minister to charge the levy in that week. That is the point that the butchers have put to the Minister, and they have not received any satisfaction from him. I am putting it to him again now, and I hope that he will give me an answer, and will not rely on paragraph 5(c) of the Order to which I have referred, as he has apparently done so far in reply to the butchers.
This is an important point. It brings into doubt the legality of the Order. If the Minister cannot answer now he should ensure that before we end the debate he obtains some hurried explanation from those within the precincts of the House.
I understand that if the Minister wishes in any way to alter the minimum import prices set out in the Order for the purpose of the levy he does not need to obtain Parliament's authority; I believe that he is able simply to make an Order which is not subject to any vote in this House. If we pass the Order we are therefore placing in the hands of a Minister in whom we have no confidence—in terms of protecting the housewife—power to vary these Orders and thus impose even greater burdens upon the housewife. I urge my hon. Friends to oppose the Order and to go out into the country and explain to the housewives that the Government are imposing upon their weekend joint of meat a tax which is an absolute disgrace, and a betrayal of every pledge that the party opposite made on their election platform, in respect of reducing food prices at a stroke.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: We have had a great amount of specious rubbish from the Labour Party in the last few days, and tonight is no exception.
First, the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) inquired what this would cost, and what we would do in the future for the pensioners. He cannot have been present during the debate initiated by my right hon Friend the


Secretary of State for Social Services. The Government are doing more for pensioners than any other Government have done. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), who blabbers on about things that he does not understand, says that "good sources" have calculated that the effect of the Order will be to put on 3p. [Interruption.] He referred to "reliable sources" or some such thing. If 3p was not what he said he can revise the figure. My right hon. Friend gave a firm calculation as worked out by the Ministry, and I would much rather have his firm calculation, which is accurate.

Mr. Harold Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman expect us to take it as seriously as his right hon. Friend suggested the Prime Minister's words should be taken?

Mr. Wells: I always take my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture seriously, as I take my right hon Friend the Prime Minister very seriously.
We want to know the source of the hon. Gentleman's calculations. That was why I sought to intervene in his speech. He would not give way because it was a bogus calculation, and he knew it.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) attacked my right hon. Friend for bringing forward the Orders at this hour of the night. Can he tell me at what hour of the night it is usual to bring forward Orders like this? This is the time at which such Orders always come on, as he knows. [Interruption.] I am addressing my remarks through the Chair to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West should go back to sleep.

Mr. Wellbeloved: There are 10 Orders and Prayers dealing with import levies. If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that they should all be taken together for debate in an hour and a half, I do not think much of his opinion of parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Wells: I should be delighted if they were debated for as long as hon. Members wish.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman is constantly naming me. He should give way.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman is one of the best-known cheats in the House. He makes remarks of questionable veracity, is unwilling to give way, and then appeals to the Chair.
The Orders seek to promote a healthy British agriculture, and with a healthy and prosperous agriculture the British housewife will be well served.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: First, I must again take to task the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). Who the devil is he talking about—himself and me and the rest of the 220,000-odd farmers compared with the 55 million people in this country? He talks about things in a narrow and selfish way.
The hon. Gentleman talked about other countries, but we import half our food and are in a totally different position from those countries which produce all their food. He talks awful nonsense for a sensible, decent farmer. It is extraordinary.

Mr. Wellbeloved: He is decent, but not sensible.

Mr. Mackie: The Minister said that the Orders were the first steps in changing our agricultural policy. They are the first step in doing away with the guarantee as well. In using that euphemism the Minister overstepped himself. He is always saying that what he is doing will stop low-priced imports from undermining our market. That is not his policy. His policy is by a levy system to raise the price of home farmers' produce to the guaranteed price by 1974, and this has nothing to do with the low price of imports. It is not an argument about whether we accept the policy when we enter the Common Market, when we shall have other advantages. It was evolved before we knew whether we were going into the Common Market.
The Minister said he was anxious that farmers should get the best prices from the market. If farmers are to do so, they have to have some system of marketing other than they have today. Is he prepared to encourage and give permission to them to start a beef marketing scheme? This is important.


I know how complicated these Orders are, and I have some sympathy—although not too much—with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) in not understanding these things. The question of target indicator prices has been mentioned. If the price falls below that target, do I take it that these guarantees will not operate except from the target indicator price to the guaranteed price and that at the end of the year it will be made up?

Mr. Prior: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mackie: If that is the case, it seems a complicated way to do it and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to clear the point up. If that is not the case, and if the beef scheme is to work properly, it should never fall below the target indicator price.
The right hon. Gentleman is lucky in the timing of these levies because at the moment beef and milk product prices are high. He said that he did not think these levies would be required. I hope he will take cognisance of the fact that food prices are the most volatile in the world. Before his levies start to bite, beef and milk prices could come down. It is not long since product prices were very low.
But this is not really a change in agricultural policy. It is a change in the guarantees to the farmers which they have been operating for many years. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for taking those guarantees away.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Whatever the advantages of a tariff or levy system, no one can pretend that it is introduced in the interests of the consumers. Clearly, it is not. It is a system of removing the pressure from the taxpayers on to the consumers while at the same time guaranteeing farmers reasonable prices. The system does not seem to make any sense in a country like ours, which imports 50 per cent. of its foodstuffs. It is a deliberate tax on food prices for the consumers and, therefore, takes away the marked industrial advantage which this country has enjoyed over other countries.
One has only to compare the food prices in this country with the food

prices in the Common Market countries to see how much more expensive the levy system is to the consumers. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) invited us to look at history. He did not go very far back. This country has had this kind of system in the past. We are really going back to the Corn Law system, which held back this country's development for many years. We know what happened to agriculture when the Corn Laws were repealed. They were damming up the prices at an artificially high level. It is arguable that if we enter the E.E.C. there must be adaptation. But that is not the ground on which these levies are proposed. They are designed to relieve the subsidy pressure on the taxpayers. As such they are unjustifiable and a retrograde step. A Government who introduce a system which deliberately puts an additional pressure on the consumers need their heads examined.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: As hon. Members know, I have an interest in agricultural matters. The purpose of these Orders, particularly the ones dealing with beef and veal, is not to put a bottom in the market, which was the original intention of the Labour Government's Orders, but to replace the system of guaranteed prices. That means that eventually the target indicator price on beef and veal will have to be raised to a sufficient level where it will operate and replace the present system of guaranteed prices. This means that the farmer will get his return in the market, which hon. Members opposite welcome.
There are many fluctuations in the market, from week to week and market to market. I wonder whether the farmers among hon. Members opposite are aware of the increased fluctuations which could apply under this new levy system. Whatever the fluctuations may be at the moment in an individual farmer's market returns, he has the benefit of a collective guarantee which does something to iron out the differences between one week and another and one farmer and another.
Secondly, it is said that Order No. 801 dealing with the fatstock guarantee payments procedure will force a farmer into a better pattern of marketing cattle and sheep and so on. What gives the Minister confidence to say that this will help farmers adjust themselves to the new


levy system? On the face of it it does not seem so very different from the present system of seasonal scales, abatements and so on.
The effect on the housewife has been mentioned and I will not labour the point except to say that the farmers sitting opposite ought to be aware of the effect of increased retail food prices on patterns of consumption. There is no point in claiming to produce 100 per cent. of a commodity if the total amount of that commodity bought by the housewife and eaten is consequently reduced. Farmers have an interest in seeing that the consumer can afford their products, and it is not clear under these Orders whether that will be the case. There could be a switch from beef and veal to pork, in the same way as there is likely to be switching from butter to margarine. That may satisfy some of the farming interests on the benches opposite but I do not think it would satisfy the whole farming community.
I turn now to one or two technical points. We understand the reasons for the exclusion of Eire because of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement and the difficulties of distinguishing between store cattle and fat cattle. About 80 per cent. of our requirements come from this country and Eire. That means that only 20 per cent. will bear the levies. Most of those beef imports are frozen beef, not chilled. Much of the frozen beef is used for manufacturing products such as steak and kidney pie and is not sold direct.
Unless there is some concession on the levy system for frozen meat used for manufacture it will raise the price of not only general meat products in the shops but tinned meat products. Is the Minister prepared to give a remission of levy on frozen meat used for manufacture, and if so, will he let us know in the reply to the debate?
If there is to be a levy on frozen meat imported into this country and used for manufacture, will it not put domestic manufacturers using home supplies of beef for manufacturing purposes at a distinct disadvantage compared with their continental rivals? They will see imported products enter the country free of levy whereas the frozen beef for use in their products will be subject to levy.

I hope that the Minister will give us some indication of his policy.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Michael Barnes: As was made clear at the beginning of the debate, we intend to vote only against the first of these Orders, although we are opposed to all of them.
I would like to emphasise what it is we object to. It is that hon. Gentlemen opposite talk as if the change-over from one system of agricultural support to another—from the system of deficiency payments to the new system based on levies—makes no difference in the sense that the taxpayer gains what the consumer has to pay. But it does make a difference, and here I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).
In many cases, the taxpayer and the consumer are not the same people. Many consumers, especially pensioners, do not pay income tax. But they will have to pay higher food prices if farmers are to get bigger returns from the market. Many who pay income tax will be worse off because of the way in which the Government have chosen to hand out the tax concessions that they are making. The Government's philosophy for their tax concessions seems to be, "The more you have, the more you get in tax concessions." It was clear from the mini-Budget last October and the Budget at the end of March that a family of four would get a net benefit only if its income was about £3,000 a year. The average family will have to pay more for its meat while financing the tax concessions to those who are better off.
If the Government made substantial increases in family allowances, it would be different. If there were to be a bigger pension increase than the proposed £1, it would be different. The real value of the pension today is lower than at any time since before the increase given by the Labour Government in 1965, and when the increase comes it will be very largely eroded. In any event, the increase in the pension is meant to compensate pensioners for the increase in the cost of living that there has been already. It is not intended to meet increased food prices which pensioners will have to pay as a result of this legislation.
The food index shows that food prices have gone up 10·4 per cent. in the 11 months from June of last year to the middle of May. Inflation has so eaten into housekeeping budgets that housewives cannot stand further increases in food prices resulting from a changeover to a new system of agricultural support, unless they are properly compensated for that change-over.
The issue before the House tonight is concerned with what is fair as between one section of the community and another. The Government have decided to change the system of agricultural support whether or not we go into the European Economic Community. As a number of hon. Members have said, the E.E.C. is not the issue tonight. The issue is the fact that the Government are changing the system of agricultural support in an unfair way, because they are failing to compensate average families for the increases that they face.
The Orders are the beginning of a crude application of Conservative philosophy which means that food prices will go up, better-off taxpayers will be over-compensated, and the average family will be worse off. That is why we shall oppose them.

11.38 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): In the brief time available to me, I want to deal with as many as possible of the technical points which have been raised in the debate. I shall not go into much of the background which my right hon. Friend mentioned in opening.
I take, first, the technical point raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) about the operation of the new system. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will write to him explaining how it works. The existing guarantee scheme, especially in relation to abatements and supplements, is not easy to explain briefly, either. I think a letter from my right hon. Friend will be the simplest way of dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) alleged that these meat levies will put up meat prices by

3p a 1b. during July. He is being a little unfair. As my right hon. Friend said, beef prices already are well above the minimum import price levies, and the levies on beef are virtually certain not to operate during July. Looking towards the autumn, it is interesting that, with the present fat cattle price of £13 a cwt., the price would have to fall, once adjusted by the seasonal scale, below £96·6 a cwt. in the autumn before the levies would operate.
On this point, although hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to a number of organisations and others who have said that it will have an effect on beef prices, the Meat and Livestock Commission has received a report this week from its independent panel of economists which claims that this beef levy will not hit prices except perhaps marginally for a short period in the autumn. That is the opinion of an independent body whose opinion we can respect.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) raised a technical point on Statutory Instrument No. 854. As the hon. Gentleman said, Article 5 of that Order sets out how the Minister shall deal with the level of the levy. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of that article explicitly state that the Minister shall compare the minimum import price with the United Kingdom fat cattle prices. Clearly, this comes within the terms of the Order.
The right hon. Member for Anglesev (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) referred to milk supplies. It is an interesting point of principle relating to the whole milk market of this country. He said that he had often been concerned about the effect that increasing the market price for milk would have on the consumer and on the liquid milk market. Frankly, one could often argue that in the past the liquid consumer had borne a disproportionate share of the costs of milk products to consumption generally. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, with the balance through the Milk Fund, the consumer in buying liquid milk products can be affected by the price of milk going to manufacture. The two are self-balancing. To this extent the introduction of the import levy scheme on milk products almost certainly helps to redress any lack of balance between these two sectors of the milk market.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about consultations. We have had consultations with foreign Governments, and everything that we have brought before the House has been negotiated with them. We have also discussed the matter with the farmers' unions. They welcome what we are putting before the House.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked about hill sheep producers. I hope that those in the hill areas will benefit from the strengthening of market prices for lamb and mutton.
It is not easy to give an indication of how much revenue might accrue under the new and revised levy schemes in the current year. It is obvious that this will depend on market prices. For mutton and lamb we expect a revenue of about £3 million for 1971–72 and about £8 million in subsequent years.
We do not expect much revenue from beef and cereals on account of world prices and the prices which we are setting. Bonding should help. We have had discussions and we are introducing bonding at the request of meat importers and traders. It should help to give greater

Division No. 396.]
AYES
[11.45 p.m


Adley, Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Astor, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knox, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Fowler, Norman
Lambton, Antony


Awdry, Daniel
Fox, Marcus
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Benyon, W.
Gardner, Edward
Longden, Gilbert


Biffen, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Loveridge, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Luce, R. N.


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gower, Raymond
McCrindle, R. A.


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McLaren, Martin


Boscawen, Robert
Green, Alan
McMaster, Stanley


Bowden, Andrew
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil


Bray, Ronald
Gummer, Selwyn
Mather, Carol


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Maude, Angus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bryan, Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Buck, Antony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Burden, F. A.
Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Money, Ernle


Channon, Paul
Havers, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Barney
More, Jasper


Clegg, Walter
Hicks, Robert
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Cooke, Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Coombs, Derek
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Murton, Oscar


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Neave, Airey


Crouch, David
Holt, Miss Mary
Normanton, Tom


Crowder, F. P.
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Curran, Charles
Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranky


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Drayson, G. B.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Dykes, Hugh
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
James, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Farr, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Proudfoot, Wilfred

stability to the market by making it easier for distant suppliers to hold stocks when there is a weak market.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked about our discussions with the Irish. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position shortly to make an announcement on the outcome of those discussions.

In debating the Orders we have to remember that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Chiswick and Brentford (Mr. Barnes) said, we have shown, by our policies in relation to social security benefits, family income supplement, and so on, that we are concerned about people. To help the consumer we are introducing into the agricultural market a greater degree of stability. This will mean that the British consumer is less dependent on imports and the high costs which flow from that course of action. The Order is in the interests of the consumer as well as the producer.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 140.

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walters, Dennis


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Ward, Dame Irene


Redmond, Robert
Sutcliffe, John
Warren, Kenneth


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Weatherill, Bernard


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tebbit, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wilkinson, John


Rost, Peter
Trafford, Dr, Anthony
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Royle, Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher
Woodnutt, Mark


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Worsley, Marcus


Shelton, William (Clapham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Sproat, lain
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waddington, David
Mr. Keith Speed.


Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orme, Stanley


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Hooson, Emlyn
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Barnes, Michael
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pendry, Tom


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pentland, Norman


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Booth, Albert
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Prescott, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Janner, Greville
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jonn, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, Dan (Burley)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rose, Paul B.


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Conlan. Bernard
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davidson. Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lipton, Marcus
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lomas, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
Loughlin, Charles
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


de Freitas. Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Strang, Gavin


Delargv, H. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dell, Rt Hn. Edmund
McBride, Neil
Taverne, Dick


Dormand, J. D.
Mackie, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Torney, Tom


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Meacher, Michael
Watkins, David


Foley, Maurice
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Weitzman, David


Foot, Michael
Mendelson, John
Wellbeloved, James


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Garrett, W. E.
Millan, Bruce
Whitehead, Phillip


Golding, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)



Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. William Hamling.

Resolved,
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Beef and Veal) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 802), dated 13th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Milk and Milk Products) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 803), dated

13th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.—[Mr. Prior.]

Resolved,
That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1971 (SX, 1971, No. 801), dated 14th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.—[Mr. Prior.]

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 3) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 851), dated 20th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.—[Mr. Prior.]

CARAVAN SITES (FIRE PRECAUTIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

11.55 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am glad of this opportunity to raise what I believe to be a serious matter, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his presence at this late hour. I am endeavouring to draw to his attention the need for improved and more easily enforceable fire precautionary requirements for caravan sites, and I realise that these could be applied only to residential sites and not to holiday sites or those occupied largely by itinerants.
My interest in this matter was first aroused by a tragedy which occurred in my constituency in which a man was burned to death in a caravan fire on an eminently respectable residential site. Although in this case most of the site fire-fighting equipment was faulty or nonexistent, nothing could have been done to save this man's life by the time the fire was discovered. Gloucester Fire Brigade, probably the finest in the country, reached the site within four minutes of being summoned, which was considerably faster than most brigades could have got there.
The number of caravan fires throughout the country has been increasing, and this tragedy has drawn my attention to the need in 1971 to review the 1960 model standards. I am particularly indebted to the Chief Fire Officer of Gloucester, Mr. Kenneth Harden, for his expert advice and the practical help which he is presently giving at caravan sites throughout Gloucester.
It is generally felt that the model standards appertaining to the Caravan Sites and Control of Developments Act, 1960, were not only inadequate but were issued in a general atmosphere of laissez-faire. In Section 5(1) of the Act local authorities are required to impose only such conditions
as they consider necessary or desirable 

As I have pointed out in Questions, Circulars 42/60 and 2/62 advised local authorities that standards should not be applied too rigidly or automatically, even where this would seem appropriate. In addition, site owners were positively encouraged under the Act to appeal against any conditions they considered to be onerous. This has resulted in a great variation and inconsistency in site licences issued by various local authorities throughout the country, and many of them are in need of urgent review.
For example, I have heard of one site licence which specifies that 100-gallon water tanks should be supplied, though it does not specify that they should be filled with water. Although the Caravan Sites and Control of Developments Act refers in Section 5 (1) (e) to the need for fire-fighting equipment to be well maintained, the model standards do not.
If, therefore, site licences are inadequate in the first place, it becomes impossible to enforce the full conditions in the model standards or to find site owners who are in default. The model standards have come to be regarded as a maximum rather than a minimum requirement in the issue of site licences, and the implementation of the recommendations in the model standards depends to a great extent on the interpretation of the local authority.
Item 1 of the model standards specifies a distance of 20 ft. between caravans, but does not exclude the subsequent building of permanent extensions to caravans, and these might greatly diminish this distance. My hon. Friend will appreciate the importance of this point because of the risk of fire spreading by radiated heat. It would not, therefore, seem unreasonable to extend the required distance to 25 ft. The specification of 100-gallon tanks every two acres under Section 5 of the Act seems out-of-date in view of the fact that the latest wheel-barrow pumps deliver at the rate of 100 gallons a minute.
However, because tanks, water buckets and hand pumps are not conducive to quick action by either elderly or untrained operators, it is thought probably more effective, in terms of taking swift first-aid action, that three or four large fire extinguishers should be located at the fire points in place of the water pumps, but whatever equipment is provided must be


properly protected from the elements. The main recommendation from many fire experts is that large fire extinguishers, ideally in each caravan, are the best form of protection.
The June issue of Caravan Industry and Park Operator, in a front-page story, refers to the problems involved in dealing with caravan fires swiftly before the fire brigade arrives. It points out that fire experts agree on the necessity for large extinguishers either in individual caravans or for communal use.
Another important consideration is the fact that not only is the danger of caravan fires greater than that of a permanent structure but the rate at which the fire develops is much faster. In an article in the Birmingham Post on 25th May this year, entitled.
Only Five Minutes to Escape Death",
attention is drawn to the recently published report of the Fire Research Station at Boreham Wood. The most important result of this was that it was found that, as caravans are constructed at present, if one does not get out of the caravan within five minutes of the fire starting one does not get out at all. Clearly, that is not sufficient time for elderly people or young families, especially if the fire starts, as it so often does, when they are asleep.
I feel, therefore, that improvements could be made to British Standard 3632/1970, which relates to the materials used in the construction of caravans. This could be done by Regulations under Sections 1 and 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1961. For example, British Standard 3632 states that the outer skin and internal linings, other than those dealt with in the code of practice, should not be less than grade 3, which are surfaces of medium flame spread, as defined by British Standard 476. But, once again, it is the opinion of fire experts that these linings should not be less than class 1, surfaces of very low flame spread, and that this standard should also be applied to the outer skin.
The other great problem of caravan sites is the storage of explosive and inflammable materials, for example, propane gas cylinders. Possibly the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Fire Precautions Act should be applied here.

Also the provision should be made that spare propane cylinders must be stored at all times in clearly marked fire-proof lockers which could be opened only from inside the caravan for security purposes.
The other point that I wish to make is that I believe that the issue of a site licence by a local authority should be subject to a fire certificate similar to that referred to in the relevant sections of the Fire Precautions Act, 1971, which under Section 35(b) gives power to apply this Act to movable structures. This would deal with two aspects of the problem at once. It would relieve the Public Health Inspectorate, which is not really appropriate, of the duty of ruling on fire precautions and carrying out inspections of them on caravan sites, and it would place these duties in the hands of the real experts, the local fire prevention staff, who could issue the fire certificates and carry out the initial inspections, which could subsequently be carried out by other officers of the fire brigade under Section 11(d) of the Fire Services Act, because, of course, regular inspection and testing of fire-fighting equipment is vital.
I have been assured by the Chief Fire Officer in Gloucester that this is well within the capacity of most brigades throughout the country. Indeed, following the recent tragedy in Gloucester, officers are not only carrying out such inspections routinely but are training caravan site residents in fire-fighting drill.
In contrast to the various technicalities that I have discussed, it might be helpful to my hon. Friend if I read a letter, one of many that I have received from all over the country, from a constituent of mine. The letter explains far more graphically than I could do the need for a greater distance between caravans. It reads as follows:
My wife and I left Gloucester to visit our daughter … who is an owner-occupier living on a small caravan site … in Berkshire …
At 4.30 early on Easter Sunday morning our daughter awoke almost stifled by heat and fumes and a glare through the French doors frosted glass. She quickly went to the kitchen window and saw that the next caravan, which was empty, was on fire from end to end. Luckily, she had a phone and dialled 999 to the fire brigade at Maidenhead, nearly four miles away, and then woke us up and told us to dress quickly, which we did. As we watched and wondered what best to do, the


whole of the burning caravan disintegrated into one great mass of flame blowing in our direction by the wind. Then the cable overhead that supplies the electricity went with a great flash and was blowing about in the wind like a flaming torch.
Then police patrol cars started to arrive, and we were strongly advised to get out at once owing to the danger from the butane gas cylinders. There was one in the fire and two attached to our caravan.
The police tried to use the ½-inch hose nearby, but there was no adaptor to fit it to the water supply. More police arrived and two fire engines with their own water tanks arrived and were soon in action, but they could do nothing to save the burning caravan but saved us from further damage. However, all our windows were cracked, the spouting melted and the cedar wood sides scorched, and all the aluminium panels blistered and buckled. The damage to my daughter's caravan was £195.
The firemen fixed an adaptor to the site hose before they left, but later in the morning I tried it out and it would only send a weak jet about 6 ft., not much use.
According to the site manager, Cookham Council, who are responsible for Bray district where there are several caravan sites, specified the distance between vans needs to be only 20 feet",
which is in accordance with the specifications in the model standards, but, as my constituent says—
obviously not enough if we suffered nearly £200 damage.
My constituent says also that the council specified:
only … 100 ft. of ½-inch hose, which is practically useless unless it is a very small fire …
We really had a very narrow escape and would not like a similar experience to happen to anyone, so hope some much more strict regulations could be passed to safeguard lives in the future.
It is interesting to note that in the fatal caravan fire in Gloucester the next caravan was 21 feet away but was affected by the heat and would have become ignited but for the very prompt arrival of the fire brigade. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider adjusting the model standards to include a new regulation as to increased distance between caravans at least in the issue of new site licences.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend for his patience and consideration in taking part in this debate tonight. I hope he will feel able to recommend all or some of the suggestions that I have made for improvements in the model standards and other regulations to my right hon. Friend

to safeguard the lives and the property of the many thousands of residents of caravan sites throughout the country.

12.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I am grateful for the courteous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) informed me of some of the points that she intended to make and for the way in which she has presented to the House the very valuable contribution she has made on this subject.
I shall refer to a number of detailed points, but I assure my hon. Friend that I will study carefully all that she has said and write to her afterwards. There are a certain number of points that I want to make in reference to the whole question of fires in caravans and safety precautions and to the case which has prompted my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. I agree with my hon. Friend that the tragedy to which she referred probably was beyond the control of any safety regulations. Indeed, the alacrity with which the Gloucester Fire Brigade appeared is to be commended.
As I understand that situation, an elderly man went to bed and, it is presumed, smoked, and fell asleep with the cigarette still alight, and as a result the bedding caught fire. There is bound to be an element of conjecture about it, but one must say in all the regrettable circumstances of the tragedy that in regulation terms that sort of thing is uncontrollable. I wish that such things did not happen, but I doubt whether one could devise a form of protection which would absolutely eliminate the chance of such a situation occurring. Any comments one might make about precautions on the site are not relevant here. I do not think that in the circumstances more could have been done, and even if some discrepancies appeared during an investigation of the various precautions, I doubt whether if all the apparatus had been in tip-top condition, and available, it would have made much difference.
But perhaps we can consider the size of the problem and see how many occurrences of this sort take place, because everyone realises that caravan touring and the growth of permanently licensed


sites is an increasing phenomenon giving a great deal of pleasure to an increasing number of citizens.
Casualties in fires in caravans attended by the fire brigades for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969 were, respectively, 21 deaths and 56 injuries; 10 deaths and 52 injuries, and 10 deaths and 50 injuries. The number of fires in caravans which did not necessarily lead to injuries were, in the same three years, 883, 956 and 992. The growth in these figures probably reflects the increase in the number of caravans.
As my hon. Friend said, the relevant legislation is contained in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960. This Act introduced a form of licensing control which has obviously greatly improved the situation which existed before then. Following on the Act, we also specified in 1960 model standards for services and facilities on caravan sites, and these were standards normally to be expected as a matter of good practice. Local authorities are required by the Act to have regard to these standards when imposing conditions under the site licences which they issue for private caravan sites.
Obviously the model standards are concerned with measures to prevent, contain and confine fires. They were drawn up in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and it is true, as my hon. Friend said, that they have not been revised since they were introduced in 1960. We consider that the most serious problem is not the review of standards but their enforcement, but will undertake that they will be looked at again by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend made the point, with which I certainly would not disagree, that the local authorities are not bound to impose the standards on site operators, and some flexibility in the application of all the model standards has always been urged upon local authorities. There are various reasons for this, and one of them is the very wide range of caravans which may exist on a particular site. We felt that in view of the need for flexibility it would be wrong to have some sort of mandatory imposition of uniform requirements.
As to fire prevention and fire fighting standards, the Minister of Housing and Local Government in the previous Administration, again in consultation with the Home Secretary of that time, advised licensing authorities less than three years ago that they should keep fire authorities informed of plans to create new caravan sites, and applications for licences and the conditions with which they proposed to attach to them. This was, exactly as my hon. Friend would require, to enable fire authorities to advise on the nature of the proposed site, and the conditions and the various ways in which the standards were to be carried out, and generally to give advice on the best means of dealing with fire precautions at that time.
It is our opinion that the advice has been generally followed. Certainly we think that it was the right way to go about it. But my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we propose to supplement this advice by asking licensing authorities to review site licences which they have already issued to make sure that suitable conditions concerning fire precautions exist in them and to consult the fire officers if any new conditions need to be imposed. We also intend to remind licensing authorities about the need to ensure that site operators not only supply the equipment required but keep it in the right place and in good working condition.
The question of fire-fighting arrangements at a caravan site is distinct from the problem of fire precautions within the caravan itself. The Home Secretary keeps the question of fire safety in individual caravans permanently under review. In the vast majority of cases the single most likely contributing factor to increased safety is the personal determination of the owners and occupiers of caravans to behave in a sensible and practical manner.
My hon. Friend said that it took about five minutes to get out of a burning caravan. My figure would be less—between three and four minutes. But as somebody who every year spends a week in his caravan touring his constituency I can say that it would not take me more than three seconds to get out of my caravan, and that must be so in virtually every caravan that one has ever set foot. If one was fast asleep, it might prove fatal. But one has to consider the sort of causes of fire when one is fast asleep. In


the overwhelming majority of cases, there would be personal responsibility for not having taken adequate steps to ensure elementary safety precautions.
We firmly believe that the primary need for caravan dwellers is a high standard of safe behaviour. It is not just a question of ensuring that the gas is out or that cigarettes have been extinguished. Things which, in a fit of enthusiasm for do-it-yourself, we might add can be a source of danger. We might allow towelling curtains or clothing to be placed too close to a source of heat which could cause fire. Obviously we are likely to do many things to our caravans which could be a danger, whatever standards are laid down.
The Home Office promotes fire prevention publicity, and there is a booklet which deals with the danger of fires in caravans. Standards have been drawn up by the British Standards Institution dealing with the means of escape, the fire resistance of linings, the safe installation of heating appliances, and so on. Most caravan manufacturers comply with them. A recent addition to them, included at the request of the Home Office, is a require-

ment for a warning notice to be permanently fixed in a prominent place inside the caravan. This gives basic instructions on what to do in the event of fire and includes a few simple fire precautions which people with common sense would, I am sure, take themselves.
The British Standard also recommends the provision of fire extinguishers in caravans, although this is not a statutory requirement. Means for fighting fires are obviously useful for dealing with incipient fires and could well be a supplement to the fire-fighting appliances on the site. But extinguishers are no substitute for the good sense which should be exercised in a caravan and which would prevent the danger of fire breaking out.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make these comments. I assure her that I shall look carefully at her detailed points and will write to her about them as soon as I can.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.